On March 1, his lawyers argued that he was "not competent" to be executed
The Singapore Court of Appeal on Tuesday rejected a legal challenge filed by the mother of an Indian-origin Malaysian drug trafficker as an eleventh hour attempt to halt the hanging of her son that is scheduled at the country's Changi prison on Wednesday.
Nagaenthran K Dharmalingam was convicted in 2010 at the age of 18 for importing 42.72g of heroin in 2009. He was caught at Woodlands Checkpoint (a causeway link with Peninsular Malaysia) while entering Singapore, with the bundle of drugs strapped to his thigh.
As per the law of Singapore, which is extremely stringent against people who violate anti-drug laws, the Misuse of Drugs Act provides for the death sentence where the amount of heroin smuggled is more than 15g.
The mother of Dharmalingam, who is now 34, had appealed against a High Court decision that dismissed his application to commence judicial review proceedings on the basis that he purportedly possessed the mental age of someone below 18.
The Malaysian national had also mounted a criminal motion to be assessed by an independent panel of psychiatrists, with a stay of execution in the meantime.
Following the conviction, Dharmalingam has exhausted all his legal recourse.
On Tuesday, after his mother's application was dismissed, the court granted Dharmalingam two hours to spend with his family members and hold their hands, according to a report by the Straits Times newspaper.
The mother, who is here from Malaysia, had her last-minute application dismissed by a three-judge Court of Appeal, comprising Justices Andrew Phang, Judith Prakash and Belinda Ang, the report said.
The attempt came nearly a month after a five-judge Court of Appeal, led by Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, on March 29 rejected Dharmalingam's last-ditch bid to challenge his death sentence, calling it a blatant and egregious abuse of the court's processes.
Earlier on Tuesday, before a packed courtroom, the mother, Madam Panchalai Supermaniam, told the court through a Tamil interpreter: "I want my son back alive, Your Honour." She said that she needed time to get a lawyer.
Court papers filed on behalf of mother and son on Monday (April 25) contended that Chief Justice Menon, in presiding over the appeal, had "fundamentally breached" Dharmalinga's constitutional right to a fair trial, and that this gave rise to a "reasonable apprehension of bias".
This argument was premised on the fact that Chief Justice Menon was the serving Attorney-General when Dharmalingam was convicted and had his sentence upheld on appeal.
Deputy Public Prosecutor Wong Woon Kwong said this argument was baseless and conveniently omitted the fact that Dharmalingam and his previous lawyers had no objections to Chief Justice Menon presiding over the case.
The prosecutor said Chief Justice Menon's tenure as Attorney-General had specifically been brought to Dharmalingam's attention, but the inmate had confirmed through his counsel that he had no objections.
DPP Wong added that Chief Justice Menon was not involved in any of the decisions relating to Dharmalingam's prosecution.
On March 1, his lawyers argued that Dharmalingam was "not competent" to be executed, claiming he was mentally disabled.
On March 29, the five-judge court said there was no admissible evidence showing any decline in Dharmalingam's mental condition.
The only evidence offered by Dharmalingam's former lawyer M Ravi was a "self-serving" affidavit in which he speculated that the inmate had the mental age of a person under the age of 18.
Dharmalingam's lawyers had also objected to psychiatric and medical reports of the inmate's scheduled check-ups - conducted on August 5 and November 3 last year - from being admitted as evidence.
The court said the lawyers' objection supports the inference that Dharmalingam is seeking to prevent the court from accessing that evidence because he knows or believes it would undermine his case.
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)