Three women on trial for alleged pro-Palestinian procession to Istana argue prior precedent
Three women accused of organising a pro-Palestinian procession to the Istana last year began their trial on 1 July, arguing they believed their actions were lawful based on an earlier incident. The case raises questions about public order laws and the treatment of similar events.
The trial of three Singaporean women accused of organising a pro-Palestinian procession to the Istana commenced on 1 July, before District Judge John Ng.
The defendants, Siti Amirah Mohamed Asrori, 30; Mossammad Sobikun Nahar, 26; and Annamalai Kokila Parvathi, 36, each face one charge under the Public Order Act. They are accused of organising a procession on 2 February 2024, between 2pm and 3pm, along the perimeter of the Istana, which is classified as a prohibited area.
According to the prosecution, approximately 70 participants gathered outside Plaza Singapura before making their way to the Istana to deliver letters regarding the Palestinian cause to the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO), which is located within the Istana grounds.
The prosecution opened its case without introductory remarks and called its first witness, investigation officer (IO) Muhammad Faizal.
CCTV footage was shown to the court, depicting the group assembling outside Plaza Singapura at around 1.51pm on 2 February 2024.
During this gathering, Mossammad Sobikun Nahar and another woman were seen distributing umbrellas featuring a watermelon design — a motif widely recognised as a symbol of Palestinian solidarity. The participants then proceeded along Orchard Road, Buyong Road, and Cavenagh Road towards the rear gate of the Istana.
Mr Faizal confirmed during questioning that while the Plaza Singapura gathering point was not within a prohibited zone, the subsequent route, including grass verges and pathways outside the Istana, was indeed restricted.
The defence, led by lawyer Uthayasurian Sidambaram, argued that the defendants were unaware of the prohibition, citing a similar incident on 11 January 2024.
In that incident, a group of 17 individuals had hand-delivered letters to the PMO using the same route, without any action taken against them.
Mr Uthayasurian contended that this previous lack of enforcement led his clients to believe they were not committing an offence.
However, Deputy Public Prosecutor Sunil Nair objected, asserting that ignorance of the law is not a valid defence. Judge Ng agreed and ruled the evidence from the previous incident inadmissible, emphasising that precedent in non-enforcement does not constitute legal permission.
Cross-examination of Mr Faizal revealed further details. He confirmed that all participants, except children, were carrying letters to deliver to the PMO. He also agreed that no placards were carried and no slogans were shouted during the walk, describing it as "orderly and quiet".
Mr Faizal explained that the event was classified as a "procession" because it involved a group moving in public for a common cause, visually identifiable by common symbols such as watermelon umbrellas and coordinated colours of black, white, green, and red.
The defence also established that the route used by the participants is the only way to hand-deliver letters to the PMO and that no signs were posted indicating that such group movements would constitute an offence. Furthermore, no police warnings or directions to disperse were given as the group proceeded towards the Istana.
At the end of the proceedings on 1 July, the defence concluded its cross-examination of Mr Faizal. The trial is set to resume on 2 July, with more prosecution witnesses expected to be called.
If found guilty of organising a prohibited procession, each woman faces up to six months’ imprisonment, a fine of up to S$10,000 or both.
Separately, two supporters of the defendants were stopped by security officers at the entrance in the morning. According to the individuals involved, they were not allowed entry due to the shirts that they were wearing. The reason for the shirts being disallowed was not explained to them at the time. As they wanted to enter the court promptly, they covered up their clothing.
As a result of the experience, supporters of the defendants have suggested that those attending adopt a smart casual attire and avoid wearing shirts with any slogans referring to causes, in order to avoid being stopped from entering.
Supporters of the three accused have also launched a fundraiser referred to as the Watermelon Umbrella Fundraiser. According to information shared by the organisers, the estimated legal costs for the defendants amount to S$30,000.
View this post on Instagram
