Activist and blogger, Han Hui Hui turned up at the Supreme Court on Wednesday afternoon, 25 February, to file a constitutional challenge on decisions which sought to contravene her constitutional rights.
Human Rights lawyer, M Ravi had earlier filed a constitutional challenge on behalf of Ms Han against what she calls a “Blanket Refusal” to permit her to speak or organise a demonstration at the Speakers’ Corner, Hong Lim Park.
She has been given by the courts until 25 March to decide whether to appoint a lawyer to represent her in a constitutional challenge that she mounted.
Ms Han was earlier represented by Mr M. Ravi for the judicial review. But he has since been suspended from practice by the Law Society due to his medical condition.
The Attorney General’s Chamber (AGC) had sought to throw Ms Han’s case out in the chambers by highlighting six procedural lapses in her originating summons.
According to Ms Han, the registrar declined AGC’s request as it is unfair for Ms Han since she had likely not received the documents by AGC because the documents were sent to Mr Ravi’s office only.
Consequently, the pre-trial conference that was held before Assistant Registrar Jean Chan on Wednesday has been adjourned to April 1.
Last October, the National Parks Board had cancelled approvals granted to Ms Han to speak and demonstrate at Speakers’ Corner after she was involved in a police investigation, and said it would not approve further applications for her to use the space at Hong Lim Park, until the police case against her was concluded.
Ms Han, Roy Ngerng Yi Ling and the 4 other Singaporeans took part in a CPF protest event at Hong Lim Park on and were charged by the police for creating public nuisance during the event. The other event held at Hong Lim Park at the same time was by the Young Men Christian Association (YMCA).
They reportedly led several hundred people in a march around Hong Lim Park and encroached into the area where YMCA was holding their annual carnival.
Ms Han and Mr Ngerng were also charged with organising a demonstration without approval.
According to Ms Han, there are lawyers who are willing to represent her in court for the public nuisance charge and the case of the constitutional challenge. But for the constitutional challenge, lawyers were only willing to represent her to withdraw the case and not proceed on with the challenge.
If Ms Han is unable to find a legal representative for her by 25 March, she will have to represent herself in courts, should she choose to continue on the constitutional challenge.
In either case of continuing or dropping the case, Ms Han will have to bear the cost of the AGC.