Surendran, who is also a lawyer, said according to the new Section 39B (2A), only those who received a certificate from the public prosecutor verifying that they were only the couriers and had assisted in disrupting drug trafficking activities would be spared the death penalty.
“The court still has no option but to sentence to death all those accused persons who are denied the attorney-general’s certificate.
“Thus, the attorney-general and his prosecutors will effectively hold the power to decide whether an accused person faces the hangman’s noose or not,” he said in a statement.
He added that the court would be unable to question the giving or denial of the certificate, as the bill provides that this be done at the “sole discretion” of the public prosecutor.
On Aug 7, the cabinet unanimously agreed to allow judges to impose an appropriate penalty on drug traffickers instead of the mandatory death sentence under an amendment to Section 39B of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952.
Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Azalina Othman Said said the cabinet had decided that the act should allow judges the right to decide on more appropriate sentences such as jail terms.
In the past, she said, judges had been forced to pass the death sentence on drug traffickers as no other sentences were available.
However, Surendran said the bill was a great disappointment and cause for grave concern.
He said it essentially follows the Singapore model, the application of which had been tainted by controversy and miscarriages of justice.
He gave the example of Malaysian K Datchinamurthy, who is currently on death row in Changi prison after being denied the certificate.
His Singaporean co-accused, however, was granted the certificate.
Surendran said the new amendments were a “serious trespass” on judicial authority as the act of sentencing and the type of sentence must be a purely judicial exercise, without any involvement of the executive.
He added that the provision would open up opportunities for corruption in the prosecutor’s decision-making process.
He said the government should instead introduce an amendment which gives sole power to the court on whether to impose the death sentence or life imprisonment, without the involvement of the public prosecutor.
“It is laudable that the government has made an effort to tackle the mandatory death penalty in drug cases.
“However, this bill is manifestly not the answer to the problem,” he said.