3-9-2024 (SINGAPORE) In a dramatic courtroom showdown, former Transport Minister S Iswaran’s bid to compel the prosecution to provide statements of all its witnesses was firmly rejected on Tuesday (Sep 3), marking his third failed attempt. The 62-year-old had sought to refer two questions of public interest to the Court of Appeal, but the three-judge panel found that the required conditions were not met.
The questions raised by Iswaran centred around whether the prosecution must include witness statements and supporting evidence within its case files, and whether the court can order the prosecution to do so. This legal manoeuvre followed two previous unsuccessful attempts by the embattled former minister to obtain the full set of prosecution witness statements before his impending trial.
Iswaran’s previous efforts had been swiftly dismissed by an assistant registrar during a criminal case disclosure conference and by a High Court judge, setting the stage for this latest courtroom clash.
The high-stakes proceedings come as Iswaran faces a staggering 35 charges, including 32 counts of obtaining valuables as a public servant, two counts of corruption, and one count of obstructing justice. These charges stem from his alleged interactions with property tycoon Ong Beng Seng and Lum Kok Seng, the managing director of Singapore-listed Lum Chang Holdings.
With his trial scheduled to commence next week, tensions are mounting. When approached by CNA regarding the trial’s planned start date of Sep 10, one of Iswaran’s lawyers, Mr Navin Thevar, declined to comment, further fuelling speculation surrounding the high-profile case.
At the heart of the legal battle lies the interpretation of Section 214(1)(d) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC), which outlines the required contents of the prosecution’s case files. While the prosecution argues that it need only provide the statements it intends to admit at trial, Iswaran’s team from Davinder Singh Chambers contends that all forms of witness statements, including “draft statements”, must be furnished.
In a tense courtroom exchange, Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon and Justices Woo Bih Li and Steven Chong grappled with the arguments put forth by Senior Counsel Davinder Singh, repeatedly expressing difficulty in comprehending his submissions.
Justice Chong questioned the very premise of admitting draft statements as evidence, stating, “In the first place, you can’t intend to admit a draft statement.” Both he and the Chief Justice repeatedly sought clarification from Mr Singh, with Chief Justice Menon candidly admitting that he was “struggling” to follow the veteran lawyer’s points.
The Chief Justice succinctly summarized Mr Singh’s stance, stating, “In effect, you’re saying, it’s the entirety of the (prosecution’s) evidence.” Mr Singh concurred, asserting that the law cannot hinge solely on the prosecution’s intentions, which he described as a “moving target.”
However, Chief Justice Menon countered, “My difficulty is – the language of the statute (in Section 214(1)(d)) is not a moving target. The language of the statute was chosen by the parliament and it constrains what the court can order.”
As the tense exchanges unfolded, Mr Singh attempted to bolster his case by referencing a repealed section governing the now-defunct committal hearings, arguing that his client effectively has fewer rights under the current criminal disclosure regime. However, the judges remained unconvinced, with Justice Chong deeming the argument “not a realistic one.”
In a decisive ruling, the three-judge panel dismissed Iswaran’s application, stating that the proposed questions did not qualify as questions of law of public interest – a prerequisite for referral to the Court of Appeal. The court further noted that the defence had attempted to “reformulate” one of the questions during the hearing, but found that neither question met the necessary criteria.
With the trial looming, the stakes are high for Iswaran, who resigned from his government positions just two days before being charged in January. If convicted of obtaining valuables as a public servant, he faces up to two years in prison, a fine, or both. Convictions for corruption and obstructing justice could result in up to seven years’ imprisonment, fines of up to S$100,000, or a combination of penalties.
