The Anti-Death Penalty Asia Network (ADPAN) is concerned with yet another execution scheduled in  Singapore. Rosman bin Abdullah has been scheduled for execution on 23 February 2022 for the  offence of drug trafficking. 

The number of executions scheduled by Singapore in recent months is highly concerning as prior cases  were all identified to be problematic in nature. Nagaenthran a/l Dharmalingam, Roslan bin Bakar and  Pausi bin Jefredin were all identified to be of low IQ, and yet Singapore has consistently refused to  acknowledge the implication of their conditions in relation to the crime they are convicted of. 

A medical assessment of Rosman noted that he was likely to suffer from Attention Deficit Hyperactivity  Disorder (ADHD) and had prior drug dependence on amphetamines. The assessment notes that while  Rosman was of sound mind during the time of his offence, his underlying conditions likely contributed  to the commission of the offence. Unfortunately, Singapore’s present legal framework does not  provide automatic consideration for individuals who suffer from mental and psychosocial disabilities,  and it does not recognise the impact of such disabilities on a person’s actions leading to the  commission of an offence. The defence of ‘abnormality of the mind’ is only open to accused persons  who are said to have played a minor ‘courier’ role in offending; proper consideration of an accused  person’s mental and psychosocial profile should not be limited based on the role in an offence they  are alleged to have undertaken. This position is discordant with Singapore’s obligations to uphold  Article 12 of the Conventions on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities1. 

Furthermore, the Rosman case also reveals the inconsistency and subjectivity behind the issuances of  the certificate of assistance by the public prosecutor. In his statement, Rosman revealed the nature of  his role in the commission of the offence and information relating to the buyer, the seller and the  process of procurement for the drugs in question. Despite his testimony, the relevant authorities have  chosen not to issue the certificate. 

The court in his case ruled that while Rosman may subjectively believe that he rendered substantive  assistance, this would not be adequate if the public prosecutor deemed that there was no substantive  assistance rendered. This is a highly problematic process of certification that relies solely on the  subjective will of the public prosecutor with no need for any form of transparency nor recognisable  and objective standards. The lack of objective standards places excessive power in the hands of the  public prosecution as they would be, in effect, accountable to no one in the issuance of the certificate. 

Given the courts are the ultimate adjudicators in criminal trials, the decision whether or not an  accused person’s level of cooperation amounts to ‘substantive assistance’ should lie with the judiciary  in order for transparency, accountability and consistency to apply.  

During the parliamentary debate on the matter, the Minister of Law suggested that the latitude  afforded to the public prosecutor was to encourage the provision of useful assistance that falls out of  the statutory definition of assistance. However, the present state of how the certificate of assistance  is issued, especially in other cases similar to Rosman when the convicted person has provided  

1 Equal recognition before the law – 

https://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/CRPD/Pages/ConventionRightsPersonsWithDisabilities.aspx#12

substantial information to the relevant authorities but fail to obtain the certificate, would undermine  the raison d’etre of the certificate of assistance. 

The current method of implementation, and lack of transparency, supports the perception that the  certificate of assistance is unreachable for most convicted, despite their best efforts to assist. In the  long run, this would gradually discourage assistance and cooperation by accused and convicted  persons as they would find it pointless and irrelevant for them to give any form of cooperation when  their final destination would be the gallows despite their willingness to repent and cooperate with  authorities. 

Recognising the existing flaws in the foundation and implementation of the Misuse of Drug Act and  the international norm where drug offences do not constitute the ‘most serious crimes’ which the  capital punishment can be meted out suggests that Singapore ought to suspend further executions  and review its law and policy on the death penalty. 

To this end, ADPAN calls on the Government of Singapore to call off the scheduled execution and  implement a moratorium on further executions.