INTRODUCTION
On October 4th, 2024, Mr. Bohari was executed in Singapore following his 2019 conviction for possession of 26.5 grams of diamorphine (heroin) for the purpose of trafficking. While capital punishment remains legal in Singapore, this particular case has prompted significant concern due to the timing of the execution, as it was carried out despite a pending legal application before the Supreme Court, in which Mr. Bohari was involved.
International legal experts and human rights organisations, including Amnesty International, have expressed their alarm over what they describe as a potential breach of the international safeguards applicable to the use of the death penalty. These safeguards, rooted in customary international law and affirmed in multiple United Nations resolutions, stipulate that executions must not be carried out while legal appeals or other proceedings are ongoing. The circumstances surrounding Mr Bohari’s execution have reignited broader debates on the compatibility of Singapore’s approach to capital punishment, particularly for drug-related offences, with international human rights norms.
THE INTERNATIONAL LEGAL FRAMEWORK: SINGAPORE’S OBLIGATIONS
While Singapore is not a party to the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which aims at the abolition of the death penalty, it remains bound by customary international law and by the minimum standards governing the use of capital punishment, particularly those established under Article 6 of the ICCPR. This provision, although not legally binding on Singapore per se, is widely regarded as reflecting key human rights principles recognised by the international community, including the right to life and the requirement that, in countries where the death penalty has not been abolished, it must be imposed only for the “most serious crimes” and in strict compliance with fair trial guarantees.
In addition, the United Nations Safeguards Guaranteeing Protection of the Rights of Those Facing the Death Penalty (ECOSOC Resolution 1984/50), to which all member states are expected to adhere, clearly states that capital punishment shall not be carried out pending any appeal or other recourse procedures. The execution of Bohari, despite a pending legal application before the Supreme Court, appears to contravene this safeguard and raises serious questions about Singapore’s adherence to the procedural guarantees required under international human rights standards.
Furthermore, Singapore’s obligations under the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), to which it is a state party, may also be implicated. Although the death penalty itself is not prohibited under CAT, the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (adopted 16 December, 1966 entered into force 23 March, 1976) 999 UNTS 171, article 6.
UN Economic and Social Council, ‘Safeguards Guaranteeing Protection of the Rights of Those Facing the Death Penalty’ (25 May, 1984) UN Doc E/1984/84.
manner in which it is applied, particularly if it is arbitrary, discriminatory, or carried out without full legal process, may amount to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.
The United Nations Human Rights Committee, as the authoritative body interpreting the ICCPR, has consistently emphasised that the imposition of the death penalty in the absence of full respect for fair trial guarantees amounts to an arbitrary deprivation of life, which is prohibited under international law. This jurisprudence, while not binding on Singapore, is indicative of the evolving global legal standards concerning the administration of capital punishment.
INTERACTION BETWEEN SINGAPORE’S DOMESTIC LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS
Singapore retains the death penalty as a lawful form of punishment under its domestic legal system, particularly under the Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA), which prescribes mandatory capital punishment for certain drug trafficking offences, including possession of relatively small quantities of controlled substances. In Bohari’s case, the possession of 26.5 grams of diamorphine met the statutory threshold for a presumption of trafficking, leading to a mandatory death sentence upon conviction.
Singapore’s courts have repeatedly upheld the constitutionality of the death penalty, including its mandatory application in drug-related cases. The government maintains that the death penalty serves as a necessary deterrent and is applied with due judicial scrutiny. However, this position has drawn sustained international criticism due to perceived incompatibilities with evolving global human rights standards, particularly those concerning fair trial rights and proportionality in sentencing.
The tension arises from the fact that Singapore’s legal framework allows for executions to proceed despite the existence of pending legal challenges, such as applications for constitutional review or judicial review of procedural irregularities. In the case of Mr Bohari, his execution occurred despite his participation in an ongoing legal application before the Supreme Court – a circumstance that international safeguards explicitly prohibit. While Singapore’s judiciary has considerable discretion in determining the merits of such applications, the principle of non-execution during the pendency of legal proceedings is regarded internationally as an essential safeguard against the arbitrary deprivation of life.
Moreover, Singapore’s reservations from certain international human rights treaties, including the ICCPR and the Second Optional Protocol, do not exempt it from customary norms and universally accepted principles of due process and judicial fairness. As a United Nations Member State, Singapore is expected to act in accordance with the principles enshrined in the UN Charter, including respect for fundamental human rights and the rule of law.
UN Human Rights Committee, General Comment No 36, Article 6: Right to Life, UN Doc CCPR/C/GC/36 (30 October, 2018).
Charter of the United Nations (adopted 26 June 1945, entered into force 24 October 1945) 1 UNTS XVI, arts 1(3), 55(c).
In this context, the execution of individuals for drug-related offences, particularly when the process disregards ongoing legal remedies, suggests a disconnect between domestic practice and the international legal consensus. The continuation of mandatory capital punishment, especially in a legal system where discretion and proportionality are limited, underscores the urgent need for review and reform to bring domestic law closer to international obligations and standards.
LEGAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
The execution of Mr. Bohari has significant legal and human rights implications, particularly in relation to the principles of due process, the right to a fair trial, and non-arbitrariness. As previously mentioned, the timing of his execution – carried out despite ongoing legal proceedings – appears to violate international human rights law, which mandates that no execution shall take place while an appeal is pending. This safeguard is enshrined in numerous international legal instruments, including Article 6 of the ICCPR and the UN Safeguards on the Death Penalty. These frameworks are designed to ensure that executions are not carried out in a manner that violates the rights of individuals facing capital punishment.
Furthermore, the continued use of the death penalty in Singapore, especially for drug-related offences, raises broader human rights concerns about the proportionality of the punishment and the potential for arbitrary deprivation of life. The Human Rights Committee has consistently emphasised that the death penalty should only be applied to the most serious cases of violent crime and that non-violent offenders, such as those convicted of drug trafficking in Singapore, should not be subject to capital punishment. The lack of judicial discretion in sentencing for such crimes further compounds these concerns, as it limits the ability of courts to consider mitigating factors, such as the circumstances of the offence or the offender’s background.
The execution of Mr Bohari in this case not only disregards the procedural safeguards designed to protect the rights of those facing the death penalty but also highlights the international community’s ongoing concerns over the use of mandatory death sentences and the application of the death penalty in a manner that does not meet international human rights standards.
JUDICIAL DISCRETION IN SINGAPORE’S DEATH PENALTY SYSTEM
The lack of judicial discretion in Singapore’s sentencing framework has attracted significant international concern. Historically, under the Misuse of Drugs Act, drug trafficking offences involving specific quantities, such as over 15 grams of diamorphine, mandated the death penalty upon conviction. Judges could not consider mitigating factors such as the offender’s age, mental state, or role in the offence.
Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) (Singapore) s 33 read with the Second Schedule.
However, reforms introduced in 2012 under Section 33B of the MDA allow limited judicial discretion in narrowly defined scenarios. A judge may impose life imprisonment instead of the death penalty if the offender is deemed a mere courier and either:
- Receives a Certificate of Substantive Assistance from the Public Prosecutor for substantially assisting in disrupting drug trafficking activities; or
- Was suffering from an abnormality of mind that substantially impaired their responsibility for the offence.
This discretion, however, depends on prosecutorial action—particularly the issuance of the certificate—which lies solely with the prosecution. This prosecutorial gatekeeping limits the judiciary’s independence and has been criticised for undermining transparency and fairness.
In contrast, sentencing for non-capital crimes in Singapore allows judges to consider various mitigating factors. This stark contrast underscores the inflexibility of the system in capital cases, where discretion remains severely limited.
CALLS FOR REFORM AND INTERNATIONAL RESPONSE
In response to the execution of Mr. Bohari and the broader issues surrounding the use of the death penalty in Singapore, numerous human rights organisations, including Amnesty International, have called for immediate reforms. These calls centre around two key areas: the abolition of the death penalty for drug-related offences and the establishment of a moratorium on all executions while legal and judicial safeguards are strengthened.
The UN Human Rights Committee has urged Singapore to reconsider its approach to capital punishment, particularly its use for drug offences, which do not meet the threshold of the “most serious crimes” as required by Article 6 of the ICCPR. The Committee has also recommended that Singapore adopt a moratorium on executions as an initial step towards eventual abolition, following the example of other countries in the Asia-Pacific region that have progressively reduced or abolished the death penalty.
International pressure on Singapore to reform its capital punishment system is likely to increase, particularly as the global trend continues toward abolition. As of 2025, two-thirds of the world’s countries have abolished the death penalty in law or practice, and international human rights law has evolved to the point where the use of the death penalty is increasingly viewed as inconsistent with the protection of fundamental rights. By maintaining its stance on the death penalty, Singapore risks further isolation from the international community, as well as continued criticism from human rights bodies and UN Special Rapporteurs.
Ministry of Home Affairs (Singapore), ‘Amendments to the Mandatory Death Penalty Regime – Questions & Answers’ (November 2012) https://www.mha.gov.sg/newsroom/press-releases/news/amendments-to-mandatory-death-penaltyaccessed 24 April 2025.
M Yeo, ‘Discretion, Death and Drug Trafficking: Reconsidering the Mandatory Death Penalty in Singapore’ (2013) Singapore Journal of Legal Studies 62 https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/1534 accessed 24 April 2025.
These developments underscore the critical need for Singapore to align its domestic legal framework with international human rights standards, ensuring that individuals facing the death penalty are afforded full legal protections, including access to appeal and judicial review, and that executions only take place in the most serious cases of violent crime.
CONCLUSION
The execution of Mr. Bohari on October 4th, 2024, despite the ongoing legal proceedings, underscores serious concerns regarding the compatibility of Singapore’s domestic capital punishment practices with international human rights law. The case exemplifies how the application of the death penalty, particularly for non-violent drug offences, can contravene essential safeguards that protect the right to life and the right to a fair trial. The timing of Mr Bohari’s execution highlights the risks of arbitrary deprivation of life and calls into question the adequacy of protections within Singapore’s justice system.
International human rights law, particularly through frameworks such as the ICCPR, ECOSOC Safeguards, and the Human Rights Committee’s General Comments, provides clear standards that Singapore is expected to uphold, even if it has not ratified certain protocols. These standards prohibit executions during active legal proceedings and impose limitations on the use of the death penalty, ensuring that it is applied only to the most serious crimes.
As the global trend increasingly favours abolition, the international community and human rights organisations continue to advocate for reform in Singapore’s approach to capital punishment. It is imperative that Singapore takes immediate steps to halt the use of the death penalty for drug-related offences and establish a moratorium on executions as a step toward eventual abolition. In doing so, it can enhance its compliance with international human rights standards and reinforce its commitment to protecting the fundamental rights of its citizens.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
-
Books and Articles
Amnesty International, Singapore: A Death Sentence for Justice (Amnesty International 2025). https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2025/02/singapore-malaysia-imminent-execution-of-pannir-selvam-pranthaman-must-be-halted/, accessed 14 April 2025.
Amnesty International, “I Thought I Was Going to Die”: Imposition of the Death Penalty Against Foreign Nationals in Singapore (Amnesty International 2021) https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/asa36/3418/2021/en/, accessed 24 April 2025.
Ministry of Home Affairs (Singapore), ‘Amendments to the Mandatory Death Penalty Regime – Questions & Answers’ (November 2012) https://www.mlaw.gov.sg/news/parliamentary-speeches/response-by-minister-for-law–mr-k-shanmugam–during-the-second-/, accessed 24 April 2025.
M Yeo, ‘Discretion, Death and Drug Trafficking: Reconsidering the Mandatory Death Penalty in Singapore’ (2013) Singapore Journal of Legal Studies 62, 62–77 https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/1534, accessed 24 April 2025.
United Nations Human Rights Committee, ‘General Comment No. 36: Article 6 – Right to Life’ (UN 2018). https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CCPR/C/GC/36&Lang=en, accessed 10 April 2025
- International Treaties and Legal Instruments
Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (adopted 10 December, 1984 entered into force 26 June, 1987) 1465 UNTS 85.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (adopted 16 December, 1966 entered into force 23 March, 1976) 999 UNTS 171, article 6.
Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) (Singapore). https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/MDA1973, accessed 24 April 2025.
UN Economic and Social Council, ‘Safeguards Guaranteeing Protection of the Rights of Those Facing the Death Penalty’ (25 May, 1984) UN Doc E/1984/84. https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/safeguards-guaranteeing-protection-rights-those-facing-death, accessed 30 March 2025.
-
Reports and Documents
Amnesty International, Singapore: Unlawful Execution despite Ongoing Legal Appeal Raises Fears of More to Come (Amnesty International 2024). https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2024/10/singapore-unlawful-execution-despite-ongoing-legal-appeal-raises-fears-of-more-to-come/, accessed 5 April 2025.
Human Rights Watch, Singapore: Executions for Drug Offences Contradict International Human Rights Law (HRW 2024). https://www.hrw.org/news/2025/01/16/singapore-new-leader-retains-cruel-death-penalty-policy, accessed 5th April, 2025.
United Nations Economic and Social Council, ‘Safeguards Guaranteeing Protection of the Rights of Those Facing the Death Penalty’ (UN Doc E/1984/84) https://www.ohchr.org/en/2, accessed 5 April 2025.
-
Case Law
Human Rights Committee, Communication No. 929/2000, Penny Hurst v Australia (UN Doc CCPR/C/77/D/929/2000) (2003).
United Nations Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 36: Article 6 (UN 2018). https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CCPR/C/GC/36&Lang=en, accessed 15th April, 2025.
