On 7 July last year, 48-year-old Norasharee bin Gous was executed in Changi Prison after being accused by a rival gang member, Mohamad Yazid bin Md Yusof of instructing him to traffic drugs in 2013.

Yazid was arrested along with another Malaysian by the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) on 24 October 2013, having found in possession of bundles which contained not less than 120.90g of diamorphine.

While in detention, Yazid accused Norasharee of having instructed him to collect the drugs from a Malaysian courier the following day after having met on 23 October 2013 at VivoCity.

In July 2015, a year and nine months after the capture of Yazid, Norasharee was arrested at his workplace and subsequently charged with instigating Yazid to traffic the drugs found with him.

At the hearing, the judge rejected the defence of Norsharee and found Yazid was a truthful witness.

The judge then convicted Norasharee on 1 June 2016 and imposed the mandatory death penalty on him as he could not satisfy any of the requirements in s33B of the Misuse of Drugs Act on alternative sentencing while Yazid was sentenced to life in prison with 15 strokes of the cane after being issued a certificate of substantive assistance by the Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC).

Norasharee, in his appeal, had argued against the use of Yazid’s testimony as sole evidence to convict him, but the Court of Appeal referred to the appeal ruling of Chin Seow Noi v Public Prosecutor, stating that the co-accused’s testimony could be used as evidence to determine a person’s guilt under the law and they thus dismissed Norasharee’s appeal.

After exhausting all avenues and failing to convince the court to overturn the conviction, Norsharee was executed on 7 July 2022, together with his co-accused, Kalwant Singh Jogindar Singh.

TOC has been in touch with Norsharee’s friends and understands the story is not as simple as one would assume it to be — Such as the failings of Norasharee’s defence lawyer at the hearing, the possibility of a frame-up by Yazid to cover up for the real instigator and the inability of the prosecutors to prove Norasharee being physically at VivoCity on 24 October 2013 and meeting up with Yazid.

In any case, the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB), in consultation with the same AGC which decided that a single testimony was sufficient to prove guilt for the instigation of drug trafficking, recently issued a statement on how it had issued stern warnings to six former senior management of Keppel Offshore & Marine Ltd (KOM) for their involvement in the bribery case in Brazil.

CPIB, in its press release, tried to justify their decision by stating how complex the bribery case in Brazil is, and that there is a possible lack of evidence to secure a conviction.

 This case is complex and transnational, involving multiple authorities and witnesses from several countries. There are evidentiary difficulties in cases of such nature. Many of the documents are located in different jurisdictions. In addition, key witnesses are located outside of Singapore and cannot be compelled to give evidence here. The decision whether to prosecute the six individuals for criminal offences has to take into consideration all relevant factors, such as the culpability of each individual, the available evidence and what is appropriate in the circumstances. Having taken these into consideration, stern warnings were issued to the six individuals.CPIB in its 12 Jan 2023 press release

But we all know from the plea agreement with the US Department of Justice (DoJ) that KOM had already confessed to the offence, paid the fine of US$65 million, and DoJ had one of the KOM executives as its key witness. Not to mention, evidence of the conspiracy to bribe is already detailed clearly in emails seized by DoJ.

So the point here is, if a man can be sentenced to death solely by the testimony of another in Singapore, what is so hard in prosecuting persons who have confessed to a crime themselves?

 

Subscribe
Notify of
39 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

The untold power of public image amidst Ridout Road controversy

Opinion: Rudy Irawan Kadjairi contends that despite a ‘done-by-the-book’ approach, the perception of privilege remains. He argues that perceptions, often unswayed by evidence, significantly influence how incidents are understood, suggesting that a code of conduct was breached in the recent Ridout saga.

The govt should not have the right to pick and choose who it chooses to prosecute for same offences

The recent allegations of negligence and cruelty to animals involving Platinum Dogs…

Does NKF have $27 million more in the kitty now than it had in 2005?

~by: Leong Sze Hian~ I refer to media reports that the National…

Compulsory counselling needed for women considering single motherhood through export of frozen eggs

Dr. Alexis Heng Boon Chin highlights concerns surrounding the extension of the age limit for elective egg freezing and the restrictions placed on single women seeking fertility treatment in Singapore. He suggests that legal loopholes allow women to export their frozen eggs for donor sperm IVF abroad. However, he emphasizes the need for compulsory counseling to ensure women fully understand the implications of pursuing single motherhood through this method, including potential legal discrimination, mishaps associated with foreign sperm banks, reduced IVF success rates, and challenges faced by mixed-race donor-conceived children.