Press Releases
MHA’s Response to Media Queries on the Court’s Ruling in Jumaat Bin Mohamed Sayed & Others V Attorney-General [2025] SGCA 40 on the Constitutionality of the Presumptions in the Misuse of Drugs Act
9 September 2025
1. On 28 Aug 2025, a five-Judge coram of the Court of Appeal (CA) dismissed an application brought by four prisoners awaiting capital punishment (PACPs), that sought to reinstate their legal challenge against the constitutionality of the statutory presumptions in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1973 (2020 Rev. Ed.) (the “ MDA ”).
2. In its judgment (the “ Judgment ”) 1 , the CA found that the application was without merits, and affirmed the constitutionality of the MDA presumptions. The CA noted the following:
(a) The Government has long held a strong stance against drug trafficking. The MDA presumptions are an essential part of the Government’s toolkit against drug trafficking, that enable the Prosecution to overcome the evidential difficulty of proving the state of mind of the accused person, which is often exclusively within his knowledge.
(b) The MDA presumptions are “constitutionally permissible” 2 and are consistent with the fundamental rules of natural justice. In particular, the MDA presumptions do not offend Articles 9(1) and 12(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (the “ Constitution ”), on the right to life and personal liberty, and equal protection, respectively.
(c) Where the MDA presumptions apply, then upon proof of a predicate fact beyond a reasonable doubt, a logically probative fact will be presumed. The presumption is rebuttable, and may be disproved by an accused person proving the contrary, on a balance of probabilities.
3. The CA observed that this is not the first time a constitutional challenge has been brought against the MDA presumptions. To date, all the challenges have been unsuccessful.
4. The Government has set out its position on the presumptions of the MDA in a Ministerial Statement on 8 April 2025 (see Annex).
5. Several challenges have been mounted by PACPs often at the last minute. The aim often appears to be to prevent the carrying out of the capital sentence that had been imposed on them.
[1] Jumaat bin Mohamed Sayed & Ors v A-G [2025] SGCA 40 (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2023 (SUM 16/2023)
[2] See para 137(e) of the Judgment
Annex