Violation of Article 9

Running head: VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 9
VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 9
Name of the student
Name of the University
Author Note

1VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 9
Introduction
According to the Article 9 of the Constitution of Singapore, the right of an individual
who has been arrested are laid down. The provisions very clearly states five principles which
forms the basis of the rights that an arrested person is entitled to. This particular essay shall be
dealing with three instances whereby the violation of the article has been witnessed along with
recommendation on how to avoid the situations in future.
Synoptic view of Article 9
Legally, a person cannot be deprived of his or her life, liberty or property, unless the
crime or the offence committed is proven by a court of law, according to 9(1). This legal
arrangement hints at the fact that the system of considering an individual as ‘innocent until
proven guilty’ is followed in Singapore (Stanley Giffard, 1999).
In case an individual who is deemed to have been arrested on unjustified grounds can
place an appeal to the High Court for securing release order or at least can appeal for a temporary
bail as per article 9(2). The right to seek an attorney, to fight a case on one’s behalf is guaranteed
by the Constitution of Singapore to an individual who has been put under police custody (Stanley
Giffard, 1999).
The individual who has been detained has been bestowed with the constitutional right to
be informed of the grounds on which the individual has been remanded into custody, according
to article 9(3). The Constitution of Singapore guarantees transparency in this regard as a
responsible government which does not act arbitrarily.

2VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 9
Taking a clue from this particular provision, the provision of being allowed to defend
oneself is also guaranteed constitutionally. The detained individual has the right to fight a case at
the court of law by a legal professional of his or her choice as per article 9(4) (Stanley Giffard,
1999).
The maximum period of keeping an individual into custody is forty eight hours, without a
trial according to article 9(5). If an individual is to be kept under detention further beyond a
period of forty eight hours, then the he or she must be produced before the Magistrate who shall
determine if the individual is to be kept under detention further (Stanley Giffard, 1999).
Case laws whereby the provision has been violated
In the case of Rajeevan Edakalavan v Public Prosecutor (1998) 1 SLR(R) 10 at [26],
the Article 9(3) of the constitution was violated, which states that the individual who has been
detained could seek the help of a legal professional for the purpose of consultation and defense.
The High Court held that the police were not dutibound to make the detained individual
informed that he or she has the right to consult a lawyer. The judge also held that the constitution
does not per se mentions that the individual is entitled to such a right and the matter has to be
taken up by the Parliament to ensure if at all the entitlement is guaranteed by Article 9(3). The
matter was once taken up for consideration in the year 2010 in the Parliament when the Criminal
Procedure was being reconsidered. Unfortunately, the Law Minister stated that the Government
was not favourably disposed towards explicitly mentioning if at all the right to consult a lawyer
on being detained was a fundamental right leaving the interpretation incomplete and ambiguous
(Marie, 2012).