https://mothership.sg/2026/04/high-court-reverses-acquittal-pro-palestine-procession/
According to court documents seen by Mothership, Justice See found that, based on the "overwhelming evidence", the trio "chose not to apply for a permit or make enquiries with the police despite their knowledge of the police advisory".
Justice See added that Siti and Sobikun were also "aware that an earlier event relating to the Israel-Hamas conflict had been cancelled by its organisers for want of a Police permit".
Justice See said that if the judge did not view the offence under Section 15 (1) of the POA, which relates to offences in prohibited areas, the judge should have amended the charge to Section 16 (1), which entails other offences in relation to assemblies or processions.
District Judge John Ng had previously acquitted the women after they contested their charges on Oct. 21, 2025, after finding that the women did not know the route they took was prohibited.
S'pore High Court reverses acquittal of pro-Palestinian procession trio, each fined S$3,000
The women were part of a group of around 70 participants who walked from Plaza Singapura to the Istana's rear gate whilst holding watermelon-print umbrellas.
April 30, 2026, 04:49 PM
Top photo by Azrizal Abu Che'/Mothership
Three women who were accused of organising a pro-Palestinian protest outside the Istana had their acquittals overturned by the High Court.
Mossammad Sobikun Nahar, 26, Siti Amirah Mohamed Asrori, 31, and Annamalai Kokila Parvathi, 37, were each convicted of one charge of organising an assembly or procession without a permit on Feb. 2, 2024, along the perimeter of the Istana.
Under the Public Order Act (POA), Istana and the immediate area around it are gazetted as a prohibited area, which includes the rear gate where the procession ended.
The High Court also fined the women S$3,000 each.
Justice See Kee Oon found that the judge in their prior trial had failed to apply a legal test surrounding the phrase "ought reasonably to know" to the facts of the case.
High Court's decision
The women were part of a group of around 70 participants who walked from Plaza Singapura to the Istana's rear gate whilst holding watermelon-print umbrellas.
Their procession aimed to hand-deliver about 130 letters for the Palestinian cause to the Prime Minister's Office's mailroom.
According to court documents seen by Mothership, Justice See found that, based on the "overwhelming evidence", the trio "chose not to apply for a permit or make enquiries with the police despite their knowledge of the police advisory".
Justice See added that Siti and Sobikun were also "aware that an earlier event relating to the Israel-Hamas conflict had been cancelled by its organisers for want of a Police permit".
Justice See said that if the judge did not view the offence under Section 15 (1) of the POA, which relates to offences in prohibited areas, the judge should have amended the charge to Section 16 (1), which entails other offences in relation to assemblies or processions.
District Judge John Ng had previously acquitted the women after they contested their charges on Oct. 21, 2025, after finding that the women did not know the route they took was prohibited.
Prosecution's appeal
According to court documents, the deputy public prosecutor (DPP) appealed against the acquittal, citing four main reasons.
Firstly, the judge failed to consider that “ought reasonably to know” encompasses two elements: the wilful, reckless failure of the organisers to make inquiries, and knowledge of the circumstances, assessed objectively based on what a person would have known had reasonable care or due diligence been exercised.
Secondly, the DPP argued that "the judge misdirected himself by placing undue weight on facts that are relevant only to the Respondents’ actual knowledge (or lack thereof)".
This includes the prohibited area having pavements open to the public, a lack of signs or notices and that organisers and participants of past letter-delivery exercises along the same route did not face known legal repercussions.
Thirdly, the DPP asserted that "the judge had erroneously found that the Respondents had acted honestly and reasonably by refusing to make enquiries with the Police or check for compliance with the POA".
Lastly, the DPP argued that the judge failed to consider amending the charge.
Justice See "troubled" by district judge's brief oral grounds being longer than final written grounds
According to CNA, Justice See was "troubled" that the district judge's brief oral grounds were in fact longer than his final written grounds.
After the trio was convicted, the prosecution said that they were not pushing for a jail term and left the sentence up to Justice See.
The trio's lawyer, Derek Wong, sought a fine of S$3,000, which the judge imposed.
Under the POA, individuals found organising a procession in a prohibited place can be jailed for up to six months, fined up to S$10,000, or both.
Related articles
Follow us on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and Telegram to get the latest updates.
Comments
Post a Comment