Adili Chibuike Ejike v Attorney-General: Judicial Review of Public Prosecutor's Decision on Substantive Assistance Certificate

Adili Chibuike Ejike, a Nigerian citizen, applied for judicial review in the High Court of Singapore against the Attorney-General's decision not to certify that he had substantively assisted the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) in disrupting drug trafficking activities. Ejike was convicted of importing methamphetamine and sentenced to death, but sought the certificate to potentially receive a life sentence. See Kee Oon J. dismissed the application, finding no evidence of bad faith on the part of the Public Prosecutor. The court held that the CNB's operational decisions and investigations were within its purview, and the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case of reasonable suspicion of bad faith.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Application dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The High Court dismissed Adili Chibuike Ejike's application for judicial review of the Public Prosecutor's decision not to issue a substantive assistance certificate.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Attorney-GeneralRespondentGovernment AgencyApplication dismissedWon
Mohamed Faizal of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Shen Wanqin of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Sarah Ong of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Adili Chibuike EjikeApplicantIndividualApplication dismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
See Kee OonJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Mohamed FaizalAttorney-General’s Chambers
Shen WanqinAttorney-General’s Chambers
Sarah OngAttorney-General’s Chambers
Mohamed Muzammil Bin MohamedM/s Muzammil & Co
Lam Wai SengM/s Lam WS & Co

4. Facts

  1. The Applicant was convicted of importing not less than 1,961g of methamphetamine into Singapore.
  2. The Public Prosecutor declined to issue a certificate that the Applicant had substantively assisted the CNB.
  3. The Applicant sought leave to commence judicial review proceedings against the Public Prosecutor's decision.
  4. The Applicant claimed the Public Prosecutor acted in bad faith by not granting the certificate.
  5. The CNB sought assistance from Nigerian counterparts through Interpol but received no response.
  6. The Nigerian High Commission stated it received no request for assistance from the CNB.
  7. The CNB received a response from the Nigerian narcotics agency over a year after the Applicant furnished new information.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Adili Chibuike Ejike v Attorney-General, Originating Summons No 1196 of 2017, [2018] SGHC 106
  2. Adili Chibuike Ejike v Attorney-General, , [2017] SGHC 106

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Applicant arrived at Changi Airport from Lagos via Doha.
Section 33B of the Misuse of Drugs Act introduced by Parliament.
CNB recorded a statement from the Applicant.
Trial on the importation charge heard.
Trial on the importation charge heard.
Public Prosecutor determined that the Applicant had not substantively assisted the CNB.
Kan SJ convicted the Applicant on the importation charge.
Prosecution and CNB received new information from the Applicant.
Pre-Trial Conference held.
Prosecution informed that the decision not to issue the substantive assistance certificate was to stand.
Prosecution informed the court that the decision not to issue the substantive assistance certificate was to stand; Kan SJ sentenced the Applicant to death.
Hearing of the Applicant's appeal against conviction and sentence set down for a date between 6 and 14 November 2017.
Applicant sent a letter to the Prosecution to confirm whether there was any response from Interpol or the Nigerian narcotics agency.
Applicant wrote to the Nigerian High Commission in Singapore.
Nigerian High Commission in Singapore replied to the Applicant.
Applicant filed the OS for leave to commence judicial review.
CNB received its first and only response from the Nigerian narcotics agency.
Submissions to be filed.
Hearing of the Applicant's appeal against conviction and sentence.
Hearing of the Applicant's appeal against conviction and sentence.
Applicant filed HC/SUM 5304/2017 to seek an extension of time for the late filing of the OS.
Judgment by See Kee Oon J.
Judgment by See Kee Oon J.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Bad Faith
    • Outcome: The court found that the Applicant had failed to establish a prima facie case of reasonable suspicion that the Public Prosecutor had exercised its discretion not to issue the substantive assistance certificate under s 33B(2)(b) of the MDA in bad faith.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [2015] 5 SLR 1222
      • [2014] 3 SLR 1141
      • [2017] 1 SLR 427
  2. Judicial Review
    • Outcome: The court dismissed the Applicant's application for leave to commence judicial review proceedings.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Related Cases:
      • [2015] 5 SLR 1222

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Declaration that the Public Prosecutor acted in bad faith
  2. Mandatory order that the Public Prosecutor reconsider his decision
  3. Order that the case be remitted to the trial judge
  4. Stay of execution

9. Cause of Actions

  • Judicial Review

10. Practice Areas

  • Criminal Litigation
  • Public Law

11. Industries

  • Law Enforcement

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Muhammad Ridzuan bin Mohd Ali v Attorney-GeneralHigh CourtYes[2015] 5 SLR 1222SingaporeCited for the conditions to be met before leave to commence judicial review can be granted and the burden on the applicant to adduce evidence to establish a prima facie case of reasonable suspicion of bad faith on the part of the Public Prosecutor.
Cheong Chun Yin v Attorney-GeneralHigh CourtYes[2014] 3 SLR 1141SingaporeCited for the principle that an applicant can challenge the sole discretion of the Public Prosecutor whether to certify that he has provided substantive assistance on the ground of either bad faith or malice under s 33B(4) of the MDA, as well as on constitutional grounds.
Muhammad bin Abdullah v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2017] 1 SLR 427SingaporeCited for the principle that the Public Prosecutor is not required to disclose his reasons every time an applicant challenges his decision not to issue a substantive assistance certificate, nor to justify his decision until the applicant meets the threshold of a prima facie case.
Prabagaran a/l Srivijayan v Public Prosecutor and other mattersHigh CourtYes[2017] 1 SLR 173SingaporeCited regarding the chances of information possibly bearing fruit only after a long while are in any event speculative and highly unlikely.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Order 53 Rules 1 and 2 of the Rules of Court (Cap. 322 R 5)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed)Singapore
s 7 of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed)Singapore
s 33B of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed)Singapore
s 33B(2) of the Misuse of Drugs ActSingapore
s 33B(2)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs ActSingapore
s 33B(2)(b) of the Misuse of Drugs ActSingapore
s 33B(4) of the Misuse of Drugs ActSingapore
s 33B(1) of the Misuse of Drugs ActSingapore
Section 18 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap. 322)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Judicial Review
  • Substantive Assistance Certificate
  • Public Prosecutor
  • Bad Faith
  • Central Narcotics Bureau
  • Misuse of Drugs Act
  • Interpol
  • Nigerian High Commission

15.2 Keywords

  • Judicial Review
  • Substantive Assistance
  • Drug Trafficking
  • Bad Faith
  • Public Prosecutor
  • CNB

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Judicial Review95
Misuse of Drugs Act90
Criminal Law80
Administrative Law75
Penal Code50

16. Subjects

  • Criminal Law
  • Administrative Law
  • Judicial Review
  • Drug Trafficking