Government to review whether amendments to Misuse of Drugs Act are necessary
Member of Parliament Christopher De Souza asked whether there was a need to review provisions of the Misuse of Drugs Act, after the Court of Appeal recently ruled that a Nigerian man who was on death row for importing drugs could walk free.
SINGAPORE — The Government is studying observations made by the Court of Appeal about the legal concept of "wilful blindness", and will set out its views on whether any legislative amendments are necessary.
Mr Amrin Amin, Senior Parliamentary Secretary for Home Affairs, said this in Parliament on Monday (July 8), adding that the Government’s understanding of the law is “not in any way different” from the Court of Appeal’s in relation to the “key issue” of a case in question.
The case involved a man who was to hang for drug trafficking, but who ended up walking free because the prosecution conceded that he did not know there were drugs in his suitcase.
For more than two years, Mr Adili Chibuike Ejike had been on death row after he was convicted of importing almost 2kg of methamphetamine.
The Nigerian, 36, who had been in remand since 2013, was freed on May 27.
The Court of Appeal quashed the conviction, because it was not satisfied that Mr Adili knew that the drugs were in his suitcase when he was instructed by childhood friends to hand it to someone else in Singapore. He was given about US$5,000 (S$6,800) for his travel expenses for the job.
A NEED FOR REVIEW?
Mr Christopher De Souza, Member of Parliament (MP) for the Holland-Bukit Timah Group Representation Constituency (GRC), had asked whether there was a need to review provisions of the Misuse of Drugs Act in light of the Court of Appeal’s judgement.
He also asked how the presumptions in the Misuse of Drugs Act will continue to function as key legal tools to prevent drug trafficking within, into or through Singapore.
In response, Mr Amrin, who is also the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for Health, explained that a person will be guilty of importing drugs if these three conditions apply:
• He is in possession of the drugs
• He knew of the drugs’ presence and their nature
• He had brought the drugs into Singapore without prior authorisation
Mr Amrin said: “In practice, it can be difficult to prove a person’s state of mind. To address this, the Misuse of Drugs Act builds in presumptions.”
When these presumptions apply, a person charged with importing prohibited drugs can be presumed to know of their presence and nature.
“It is then for the accused to give sufficient evidence to rebut the presumptions,” Mr Amrin explained.
'WILFUL BLINDNESS'
On the legal concept of “wilful blindness”, Mr Amrin said that a person will be treated as knowing a fact if it can be shown that he suspected something was amiss yet did not verify his suspicion out of fear of the legal consequences, and if he had reasonable means of discovering the truth.
Mr Amrin said that “one key issue” in Mr Adili’s case was whether Mr Adili could rebut the presumption that he knew the nature of the drugs in his suitcase. The Court of Appeal noted that the prosecution had conceded that Mr Adili did not actually know of the presence of the drugs.
Mr Amrin said that once the prosecution accepted that the accused did not know of the presence of the drugs, then the presumption no longer applies.
“The presumption allows the court to conclude that the accused did know. But if the prosecution accepts that the accused did not know of that fact, then obviously the presumption cannot be relied upon.”
He added: “This legal reasoning is neither novel nor new, and is not in any way different from the Government’s understanding of the law.”
Mr Amrin said that the Court of Appeal had made “other observations” on wilful blindness, although he did not elaborate on those observations.
“We are studying those observations carefully, and will set out the Government’s views in due course and whether any legislative amendments are necessary.”
A ‘VERY PECULIAR’ CASE
When approached by TODAY for their views on whether there was a need to review any provisions of the Misuse of Drugs Act, two senior lawyers said that they did not believe there was anything wrong with the current laws.
Mr Ramesh Tiwary, a criminal law practitioner, said that Mr Adili’s case was very peculiar. “I think I must have done definitely more than 200 or 300 cases in my 30 years (of practice) and I have never known these facts to have been repeated any time before.”
The lawyer, who is experienced in handling drug cases, stressed that the Misuse of Drugs Act is “rife with presumptions”.
“Presumptions are not evidence… so I don't think we need to load more presumptions into the (Act) when we are faced with capital punishment.
“You don't want to hang somebody when you are not sure that a person actually should have known that there are drugs (in his possession).”
Mr Eugene Thuraisingam, a human rights and criminal lawyer, agreed that Mr Adili’s case should not prompt any review of the legislation.
“It stands for a very simple proposition. If on the one hand, the prosecution makes an important concession in that they accepted that the person did not know there were drugs in the bag…they cannot then go on to rely on the presumption (that he did).”
Mr Thuraisingam said this was “logically inconsistent”. “So the issue really is the concession made by the prosecution,” he added.
