SINGAPORE: The trial of Workers’ Party (WP) chief and Leader of the Opposition, Pritam Singh, will not proceed today (22 October) after the court was informed that his lead lawyer, Mr Andre Jumabhoy, is unwell.

After over an hour’s delay to the proceedings on 22 October, Singh’s other lawyer, Mr Aristotle Emmanuel Eng Zhen Yang, informed the court that Mr Jumabhoy had received a medical certificate declaring him unfit for court for two days.

Deputy Principal District Judge Luke Tan approved the defence’s application to stand down the trial until the afternoon of 23 October.

Mr Eng stated that he would provide an update to the court in the morning regarding Mr Jumabhoy’s condition and whether the proceedings could resume at 2.30pm.

Originally scheduled to begin at 11am on 22 October, the trial was delayed until approximately 12.20pm as lawyers from both sides consulted with the judge in chambers.

Mr Singh is facing two charges of lying to a parliamentary committee about his handling of former WP Member of Parliament (MP) Raeesah Khan’s 2021 admission that she had lied in Parliament regarding a false anecdote of sexual assault case.

Both the prosecution and defence had been awaiting the judge’s decision on an application made by Mr Jumabhoy the previous day.

This application sought to tender former WP cadre Yudhishthra Nathan’s unredacted messages from 4 to 12 October 2021, in court.

Mr Jumabhoy also requested the redacted versions of these messages between Mr Nathan, fellow WP cadre Loh Pei Ying, and Ms Raeesah Khan, along with the reasons Mr Nathan had provided to the Committee of Privileges (COP) for the redactions.

Mr Jumabhoy argued that this was a reasonable line of inquiry, as it directly pertains to the credibility of Mr Nathan and Ms Loh’s testimonies.

However, the prosecution objected, asserting that the COP’s findings and the redacted messages are not relevant to the criminal trial.

Deputy Attorney-General Ang Cheng Hock highlighted that Singh’s first charge relates to a meeting with Ms Khan on 8 August 2021, while the second charge concerns a subsequent meeting on 3 October 2021.

He pointed out that the redacted messages pertain to a time after these meetings.

Judge Tan stated on 21 October that part of the prosecution’s case relies on the meeting between Singh, Mr Nathan, and Ms Loh on 12 October, making the credibility of the two WP cadres a significant issue, as it “goes to whether their evidence is to be believed or not.”

The judge indicated that he would review the message logs alongside evidence from Mr Nathan before making a decision.

Ms Khan had, on 3 August 2021, recounted an account of accompanying a sexual assault victim to a police station, claiming the victim was treated insensitively.

She repeated this claim before the House on 4 October of the same year, before admitting to the falsehood on 1 November 2021.

For each charge, Mr Singh faces a maximum penalty of a S$7,000 fine, a jail term of up to three years, or both.

The defence is expected to conclude its cross-examination of Mr Nathan on 23 October.

Following the completion of the prosecution’s re-examination of Mr Nathan, it is anticipated that former WP secretary-general Low Thia Khiang will be called as the next witness.

The trial, scheduled for 16 days in total, will see its first tranche conclude on Thursday. The second tranche, consisting of seven days, will begin on 5 November, with intermittent breaks throughout.

The trial of Workers’ Party (WP) leader Pritam Singh resumed on Monday (21 Oct), following a lunch break. Singh is facing two charges of lying to a parliamentary committee about his handling of former WP Member of Parliament (MP) Raeesah Khan’s 2021 admission that she had lied in Parliament regarding a false anecdote of sexual assault case.

The charges stem from an investigation by the Committee of Privileges (COP), which reviewed the circumstances surrounding Khan’s falsehood.

Testifying as a prosecution witness, WP cadre member Yudhishthra Nathan was questioned by Singh’s defence lawyer, Andre Jumabhoy, focusing on a redacted message sent by Nathan to Khan on 12 October 2021.

In this message, Nathan advised Khan to “not give too many details (and) at most apologise for the fact of not having her age accurate.”

The defence contended that this advice encouraged Khan to continue lying, which Nathan had withheld by redacting the message from his submission to the COP.

Defence challenges redaction of messages

During cross-examination, Jumabhoy pressed Nathan on why the message was redacted, arguing that it was relevant to the COP’s inquiry.

“Do you not think that the COP would be interested that (Khan’s) confidant, the man behind the scenes, was telling her to continue to lie?” Jumabhoy asked.

Nathan disagreed with this interpretation, stating, “I felt the message was immaterial,” as it was sent after the key instances when Khan lied in Parliament, on 3 August and 4 October 2021.

Nathan admitted under questioning that his advice to Khan could be seen as encouraging her to withhold the truth but maintained that the COP was investigating events before 12 October 2021.

“Given the specific context of the message when I sent it, yes, I did think that was immaterial at that time,” Nathan said, defending his decision to redact the message.

Jumabhoy pushed further, suggesting that Nathan redacted the message because “it shows you in a bad light.”

In response, Nathan conceded, “I partially agree. I think if people understood my state of mind when I had sent that message then… they might have come to a different conclusion.”

At one point, Nathan stated he believed the COP was primarily interested in the role of WP leaders concerning Khan’s lie in Parliament.

Breaching parliamentary instructions

The defence also questioned Nathan about whether he had discussed the redaction process with Loh Pei Ying, another WP member, despite clear instructions from Parliament not to discuss evidence related to the COP.

Jumabhoy asked, “And you leave Parliament and you do exactly that?”

Nathan admitted, “At that point of time, yes,” acknowledging that he had spoken to Loh about which messages to redact.

Application for redacted messages

As the session progressed, Jumabhoy applied to the court for access to Nathan’s redacted messages, along with explanations for the redactions.

He argued that these messages were essential to assess the credibility of Nathan and Loh’s testimonies, given their close relationships with Khan.

“I’m not here to challenge the findings of the COP… (but) these witnesses’ credibility is very much an issue,” Jumabhoy said.

He suggested that Nathan and Loh were acting independently of WP leadership and might have encouraged Khan to lie, rather than merely following instructions.

Deputy Attorney-General (DAG) Ang Cheng Hock fiercely opposed the application, asserting that the redacted messages were not relevant to the charges Singh faces.

DAG Ang gave the Court his assurance that there was no need to see the redacted text in question, which had absolutely no relevance to the present case.

“Nothing in those messages that have been redacted go to any of those truths,” DAG Ang stated, pointing out that Singh’s charges pertain to events in August and early October 2021, while the redacted messages were from after these dates.

He argued that the defence was trying to shift focus to the integrity of the COP’s process rather than addressing the specifics of Singh’s charges.

However, Judge Tan mentioned the principle that the general practice is to allow the Defence to see what has been redacted even if the redacted version ends up being use in Court.

Judge to review message logs

Despite the prosecution’s objections, Deputy Principal District Judge Luke Tan acknowledged that the credibility of the witnesses, including Nathan, was crucial to the case.

The judge noted that the messages in question, though sent after 4 October 2021, might still shed light on Nathan and Loh’s roles in the events leading up to their meeting with Pritam Singh on 12 October 2021.

This meeting, according to testimony from both Nathan and Loh, was when Singh allegedly told Khan he would not judge her, regardless of whether she continued to maintain her lie or came clean to Parliament.

“The issue of their credibility, especially leading up to the 12th, and even on the 12th, is an issue. Because it goes to whether their evidence is to be believed or not,” Judge Tan said.

He added that he would need to review both the redacted and unredacted versions of the messages, as well as the reasons given for the redactions, before making a decision on the question of relevance.

DAG then promised to prepare and place the redacted and non-redacted version before the judge by 5.15pm

The hearing concluded with the court set to reconvene at 11 a.m. the following day.

Both the defence and prosecution will present their arguments regarding the relevance of Nathan’s redacted messages and their impact on the credibility of the witnesses.