In a landmark judgment on October 21, 2025, a Singapore district court acquitted three women who had been accused of organising a pro-Palestinian procession near the Istana, ruling that they did not know the route they took was part of a prohibited area under the Public Order Act.
The defendants — Mossammad Sobikun Nahar (26), Siti Amirah Mohamed Asrori (30), and Annamalai Kokila Parvathi (37) — were charged for their involvement in a peaceful walk from Plaza Singapura to the Istana’s rear gate on February 2, 2024, where they intended to hand-deliver letters expressing solidarity with Palestine to the Prime Minister’s Office.
The Courtroom and Verdict
Presiding Judge John Ng acknowledged that while the women had indeed organised the procession to publicise the Palestinian cause, the prosecution had failed to prove that they reasonably knew they were in a prohibited area. The judge noted that the pavement along the Istana’s perimeter was a public walkway with no signage indicating restricted access and had been used in previous similar walks to deliver letters.
Judge Ng accepted that the trio “were trying their level best not to run afoul of the law” and held an “honest and reasonable belief” that their actions were lawful. The courtroom erupted in cheers as the acquittal was announced, with supporters embracing the women outside the State Courts in scenes of emotion and relief.
The Case and Arguments
The prosecution, led by Deputy Public Prosecutor Hay Hung Chun, argued that the trio had intentionally organised a procession to publicise a political cause, pointing to their use of umbrellas decorated with watermelon motifs — a widely recognised symbol of Palestinian solidarity.
While the court accepted that the women’s actions were indeed a form of expression for Palestine, it emphasised that intent to publicise did not equate to knowledge of illegality. Their defence counsel, Derek Wong and Uthayasurian Sidambaram from Phoenix Law, successfully argued that the women were unaware that their chosen route fell within a restricted zone.
Judge Ng remarked that although their denial of intent was “disingenuous,” it was the absence of a guilty mind—the “mens rea”—that proved decisive. He described the humanitarian crisis in Palestine as “the sad backdrop to this case,” noting that the women’s actions stemmed from conviction rather than malice.
Public Reaction and Reflections
Outside the courthouse, supporters waved and hugged as the women emerged hand-in-hand. Ms Siti Amirah expressed gratitude for what she called an “unexpected” outcome, while Ms Sobikun thanked the community for their unwavering support. Ms Annamalai described the verdict as “an incomplete victory,” saying that the broader struggle for civil liberties and Palestinian freedom continues.
Had they been convicted, the women faced up to six months’ imprisonment or a fine of S$10,000, or both. CNA has reached out to the Attorney-General’s Chambers to confirm whether the prosecution intends to appeal.
This case has become a talking point in Singapore’s legal and civic landscape — a rare instance where the balance between public order and freedom of expression was tested in court. For many, the ruling reflects the judiciary’s careful effort to interpret the law with both fairness and compassion, acknowledging citizens’ moral intent while upholding procedural justice.
What the Judge Decided
The court looked at two parts of the law:
- Actus Reus (Guilty Act) – whether they actually organized a procession.
- The judge agreed this happened — they walked together with a message, which met the definition of a “procession.”
- Mens Rea (Guilty Mind) – whether they knew or should reasonably have known they were doing it in a prohibited area.
- The judge said no — there were no signs or warnings saying the public walkway was restricted, and similar walks had happened before.
- The women honestly believed they were allowed to take that route.
Not “Ignorance of the Law”
Some online commenters claimed they were acquitted because they “didn’t know the law.”
That’s incorrect — ignorance of the law is never a valid defence in Singapore.
The acquittal was based on lack of knowledge of facts, not lack of knowledge of the law.
They didn’t know the route itself was prohibited — not that they didn’t know protesting there was illegal.
Legal Principle
- Ignorance of the law = not knowing something is illegal → Not a defence.
- Ignorance of fact = not knowing you’re in a restricted area → Can be a defence if reasonable.
This distinction was the core issue in the case.
The women were acquitted because they reasonably believed they were walking on a public path — not because the court allowed “ignorance of law.”
The judge made it clear the prosecution failed to prove they knew or should have known they were in a restricted zone.
