The High Court reversed the acquittal of the three women—Malay-origin Mossammad Sobikun Nahar, 26, Siti Amirah Mohamed Asrori, 30, and Indian-origin Annamalai Kokila Parvathi, 37—who were accused of organizing the procession on February 2, 2024, as reported by The Straits Times.
Justice See Kee Oon granted the prosecution’s appeal against the three women’s acquittal, who each faced a charge of organizing a procession in the restricted area surrounding the Presidential Palace, Istana, under the Public Order Act (POA).
Also Read: Newgen Software Q4 Results: Shares rise up to 8% after US, APAC lead growth, margin expansion
Their attorney, Derek Wong, requested a fine of SGD 3,000, while Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) Hay Hung Chun did not propose a specific sentence.
The three women had contested the charges in a joint trial that started in July 2025.
Security camera footage shown in court depicted a gathering of approximately 70 individuals outside Plaza Singapura, a mall near the Palace, before they proceeded toward the Istana, holding open umbrellas adorned with a watermelon graphic.
This fruit symbolized the colors of the Palestinian flag, according to the report from the Singapore daily.
In acquitting them in October 2025, district judge John Ng stated that while the three women conducted a procession on that day, they did not have reasonable knowledge that the route was in a prohibited area.
The district judge emphasized that the prosecution had to establish two fundamental elements of the offense—the physical act and the mental element.
On April 30, DPP Hay argued for the overturn of the acquittal, claiming that the district judge had erred in applying the correct legal test regarding the mental element.
DPP Hay maintained that the charges against the three women were not based on actual knowledge, but rather that they “ought reasonably to have known” that their chosen route was restricted.
He pointed out that the women were aware the police had issued a notice indicating that events related to the Israel-Hamas conflict would not be permitted.
Another concern raised was that Siti and Sobikun were aware of a prior event related to the cause that was canceled.
He noted that information about public assemblies and processions was readily available “24/7” through online access to statutes.
Wong argued that the district judge had not made an error and had applied the correct legal standards, asserting that knowing about the POA differs from understanding what constitutes a prohibited area.
