JUDGMENT

Nallini Pathmanathan FCJ:

Introduction

[1] These appeals concern the concepts of sovereign or state immunity and extraterritoriality under international law. The issues which emerge for consideration by this Court essentially relate to:

(i) whether an impugned act by the Minister of a foreign state amounts to a public act attracting state immunity; and

(ii) whether state immunity may be relied upon as a defence when there is a dispute as to the extraterritorial nature of a foreign statute.

The Salient Facts

[2] The Appellant in Civil Appeal No: 01(i)-17-05/2023(W) is the Government of Malaysia. The Appellant in Civil Appeal No: 01(i)-16-05/2023(W) is the Attorney General of Malaysia.

[3] The Respondent for both appeals are Lawyers for Liberty, a Malaysian non-Governmental organization ('NGO').

[4] The facts giving rise to these appeals are as follows:

(a) On 16 January 2020, the Respondent published a press statement on their website alleging that the method of execution of the death penalty in Singapore was unlawful and brutal ('LFL Press Statement'); and

(b) The Government of Singapore directed the issuance of a Correction Direction dated 22 January 2020 ("the Correction Direction") to the Respondent under s 11 of the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act 2019 ('POFMA'), notifying the Respondent that:

(i) the LFL Press Statement contained false statements of fact;

(ii) Singapore's Minister of Home Affairs ('the Minister'), in exercise of his statutory powers under POFMA, directed the Respondent to insert a correction notice ('correction direction') not later than 23 January 2020 and failure to comply with the correction direction, without reasonable excuse, would amount to an offence under s 15 of the POFMA;

(iii) the Respondent could apply to the Minister to vary or cancel the correction direction; and