LETTER | I refer to the Malaysiakini report 'Unlawful' of S'pore to hang Prabu – lawyer.

Malaysian lawyer N Surendran has a valid point that Singapore has breached due process when its president replied that the clemency process had concluded, in her refusal to consider the latest clemency petition.

Filing second round clemency petitions are absolutely permitted under the Singapore constitution and must be considered by the president when they are filed.

I recall that in 2016, a second clemency petition was also filed on behalf of another Malaysian, Kho Ja Bing a few days before his execution.

At that time, the then president, Tony Tan, whilst acknowledging Kho's intention to file a new clemency petition, had acknowledged that he would look at the latest position and consider it.

However, in the end, he took the position that his decision to reject the previous clemency petition in October 2015 “still stands".

This clearly shows that the current president is in breach of the due process and the spirit of Article 22P of the Singapore constitution that governs the clemency process.

It is wrong to state that the clemency process once decided concludes indefinitely. When practising, I myself had filed second clemency petitions on behalf of my clients in the past and they were considered.

This is a grave matter of public concern as involves the lives of people on death row. It involves possible unlawful executions of nationals of other countries.

In view of the contradicting positions taken by the office of the Singapore president, and to prevent any escalation of diplomatic tensions between the two countries, I strongly urge the president of Singapore to exercise the powers vested to her under Article 100 of the constitution of the Republic of Singapore to refer the above constitutional question to the Court of Three Judges to determine the matter.

If the president does not exercise her powers under Article 100, this may result in further breaches of due process.

It is wrong for the government (President) to state that the clemency process once decided cannot be invoked again.

The constitution demands clarification on the interpretations applied.

The writer is an international human rights lawyer.

The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of Malaysiakini.