Judge overturns acquittal of three women who organised procession outside Istana, each fined $3k
Selina Lum
The Straits Times
April 30, 2026
The High Court on April 30 overturned the acquittal of three women who were accused of organising a procession outside the Istana to publicise the cause of solidarity with Palestine, and fined them $3,000 each.
Justice See Kee Oon allowed the prosecution’s appeal against the acquittal of Mossammad Sobikun Nahar, 26, Siti Amirah Mohamed Asrori, 30, and Annamalai Kokila Parvathi, 37, who had been accused of organising the procession on Feb 2, 2024.
He convicted the women, who each faced one charge of organising a procession along the perimeter of the Istana, which is a prohibited area, under the Public Order Act (POA).
Their lawyer, Mr Derek Wong, argued for a fine of $3,000, while Deputy Public Prosecutor Hay Hung Chun made no submission on sentence.
The three women had contested the charges in a joint trial that began in July 2025.
Security camera footage presented in court showed a group of around 70 people gathering outside Plaza Singapura before they walked towards the Istana, while holding open umbrellas painted with a watermelon graphic.
The fruit represented the colours of the Palestinian flag.
In acquitting the women in October 2025, District Judge John Ng said that although the three women had carried out a procession on the day in question, they had not reasonably known that the route was a prohibited area.
The district judge said the prosecution bore the burden of proving the two basic elements of the offence: the physical act and the mental element, which is the person’s guilty state of mind.
He said that while the prosecution did prove Sobikun and Amirah had organised the procession with assistance from Annamalai, it failed to show they ought to have known the procession was conducted in a prohibited area.
He said the route taken was via a pavement regularly used by members of the public, and there were no signs or notices to indicate to or inform users that the public path was part of a prohibited area.
On April 30, arguing to overturn the acquittal, DPP Hay argued that the district judge had made an error of law in applying the correct legal test on the mental element.
DPP Hay said the prosecution had stated very clearly that the charges against the three women were not for having actual knowledge, but that they “ought reasonably to have known” the route taken was in a prohibited area.
The prosecutor argued that the district judge had conflated the two and had addressed his mind only to factors that affect actual knowledge.
DPP Hay noted that the women were aware the police had issued an advisory stating that events held in relation to the Israel-Hamas conflict would not be permitted.
He said this was a red flag which should have prompted an honest and reasonable person to have made further inquiries.
Another red flag, he said, was that Amirah and Sobikun actually knew about a previous event related to the cause that was cancelled.
He said information about public assemblies or processions was available “24/7 in the form of access to statutes online”.
Mr Wong argued that the district judge did not make an error and had applied the correct legal test.
The lawyer said having knowledge about the POA was different from knowing what is a prohibited area.
Explore more on these topics
See something interesting? Contribute your story to us.
