Singapore High Court dismisses Indonesian fugitive Paulus Tannos’ bid to challenge extradition process

He argued that the minister failed to explain why the passage of time since the alleged offences did not make it “unjust, oppressive or too severe a punishment” to surrender him, given that a decision to issue the notice directly affected a fugitive’s personal liberty.

However, the High Court Judge said that the minister’s decision to issue the notice did not directly result in a loss of personal liberty. 

Justice Xu agreed with the state’s argument that the minister’s decision to issue a notice was only a preliminary step in the extradition process, rather than a determination on whether Tannos should be extradited.

He agreed with the state that the extradition hearing would then decide if Tannos should be committed to prison to await the warrant for his surrender.

He referred to the affidavits provided by one of the Law Minister’s staff, Mr Neo Eng Hong, who had helped to process the extradition request.

Mr Neo’s affidavits stated that the minister had taken into account the facts before him, including that the limitation period to prosecute Tannos in Indonesia would expire in a few years. He had also considered that Tannos’ extradition was sought for a serious offence and that Indonesia had not delayed in seeking his extradition.

“Given this, the applicant’s argument that the respondent has failed to provide a meaningful explanation of the minister’s reasoning is meritless,” said Justice Xu.

Justice Xu also rejected Tannos’ argument that the minister was required to seek representations from him before issuing the notice, in part because doing so would warn fugitives of their impending arrest and give them an opportunity to flee.

The judge concluded that the evidence before him did not disclose a prima facie case warranting judicial review.

Tannos also sought a review of his detention, contending that the extradition request was not valid or that it was not fulfilled within a specified reasonable time.

He argued that under the conditions of the extradition treaty, his detention was unlawful as he ought to have been released within 45 days of his provisional arrest.

However, given Justice Xu’s findings that Tannos had failed to make out a prima facie case that the extradition request was invalid, the judge dismissed the application for an order for review of detention.

Tannos’ extradition hearing at the State Courts is ongoing.