Judge does not allow release of Nathan’s unredacted messages, Latest Singapore News

A request by Workers’ Party (WP) chief Pritam Singh’s lawyer for a full set of message logs from prosecution witness Yudhishthra Nathan was dismissed by the judge when the trial resumed on October 23.

Deputy Chief District Judge Luke Tan said he saw no legal basis for Mr Nathan’s unredacted messages to the Committee on Privileges (COP) to be disclosed to the defence. That’s because the messages don’t meet disclosure requirements under case law.

Singh’s lawyer, Andre Jumabhoy, had earlier in the week sought the unredacted and redacted versions of Mr. Nathan at the COP, arguing that they went directly to whether the testimonies of Mr. Nathan and fellow WP Loh Pei Ying, who both attended former Sengkang WP MP Raeesah Khan in her MP roles, is credible.

The judge said that after carefully examining the documents, he was satisfied that none of the messages were relevant to Singh’s guilt or innocence. Because the redactions were made for the purpose of the COP’s specific investigation, the scope and basis of the redactions were also not relevant to the current criminal trial.

Judge Tan also noted that a list of unredacted messages from Mr Nathan, as well as the full list of redacted and unredacted messages from Ms Loh Pei Ying, have already been admitted as evidence for the trial.

While there is “no doubt” that Mr Nathan’s credibility, as with the credibility of all witnesses, is an issue, the messages that are already part of the trial evidence can and have been used to assess- yes, he added.

Singh is contesting two charges over his alleged lies to the COP, which was convened in November 2021 to investigate Khan’s lying to Parliament.

On 3 August 2021, Ms Khan told Parliament how she had accompanied a sexual assault victim to a police station, where the victim was treated in an insensitive manner. He repeated the claim before the House on 4 October of the same year, before admitting his lie on 1 November 2021.

Former WP secretary-general Low Thia Khiang took the stand in the afternoon, after the defense finished its cross-examination of Nathan. Here are the key points from Mr Nathan’s evidence on 23 October:

1. WP cadres did not tell COP about “important” discussion with Singh

Mr Nathan questioned why neither he nor Ms Loh had told the COP what they later told the police, which was that Singh had told them at a meeting on 12 October 2021 that the WP was changing his strategy on Mrs. Khan’s lie.

Mr Nathan had previously testified that the WP leader had told him at that meeting that the party now wanted Ms Khan to come clean, as the Government might already have known that Ms Khan’s story was not true, and that it would be “bad karma” to keep her. to the lie

Jumabhoy asked why Mr. Nathan did not mention this at the COP, as the old WP cadre had agreed that this change in strategy was significant.

The defense lawyer pointed out that the Minister of Culture, Community and Youth, Edwin Tong, had specifically asked the COP if anything more relevant had happened at that meeting on October 12, and had not mentioned it to the commission .

Mr. Nathan replied that it was a very long meeting and it was not something that crossed his mind when he was in front of the COP.

Mr. Jumbahoy then told Mr. Nathan that he didn’t mention it at the COP because this exchange with Singh didn’t happen and that he had made it up. Mr. Nathan disagrees.

2. Nathan and Loh discussed the events between the COP hearings and the police investigation

In cross-examination, Mr Nathan said he had met Ms Loh sometime between the COP hearings in late 2021 and the police investigations in early 2022 to discuss the matter, although he could not recall whether they talked about what happened on October 12th. 2021, meeting.

When asked if he and Ms Loh had tried to “remove the memory”, Mr. Nathan said they had conversations about what happened, but disagreed with the defense’s characterization.

Asked if it was possible for them to describe to each other what should be included in their statements to the police, Mr Nathan, however, said: “No. I wouldn’t put it that way.”

He later accepted that some of those conversations were what they were telling the police, but disagreed when Mr Jumabhoy said he or Ms Loh had brought up “this little nugget about Pritam Singh admitting that he goes there should be a change in the party’s strategy”.

Mr Nathan said he could not recall whether he had learned whether the police were investigating the matter when he spoke to Ms Loh.

That’s because he couldn’t remember whether they had spoken before or after Parliament debated the COP report on February 15, 2022. In that session, the House had voted to refer Singh to the prosecutor for further investigation.

3. “Pritam Singh would try to use this information against him”

The court heard that Mr Nathan met Ms Loh for dinner on two occasions – once on 29 November 2021 and again on 1 December 2021, which was joined by Ms Khan. Mike Lim, then a legislative assistant to Ms Khan, also attended both meetings.

Asked if they discussed the upcoming COP hearings on those occasions, Nathan said: “Possibly.”

Mr Nathan said Ms Khan at the time was a little afraid to face the COP and tell the truth that WP leaders had told her to keep her lie going since August 2021.

Mr Nathan explained that while they were together on December 1, Lim had gone out to make a phone call with Singh.

Before Mr Lim made the call, Ms Loh had told him to tell Singh that she had been called before the COP and that she was not going to lie to save the party, Mr explained. Nathan.

Mr Nathan said he remembered it well as Ms Loh had become emotional and was “trying to give (Singh) another chance to tell the public what really happened”.

Singh had countered that Ms Loh should go to the COP and tell the truth, a reaction Mr Nathan said surprised him.

Mr Jumabhoy referred to a message on Dec 22, 2021 in his group chat, where Ms Loh had asked Mr Lim to be careful when speaking to the WP chief. The message also read: “Please don’t tell him we met before the COP, ok? He really can’t tell.”

Mr Nathan had added at this point in the chat: “Just to protect yourself.”

Asked what his words meant, Nathan said: “In case (Singh) tried to use this information against him.”

Jumabhoy then told Mr Nathan that he and Ms Loh had been lining up the facts of the COP to make sure their stories matched and had checked with each other what messages to include and what to redact. in his communications to the committee. Mr Nathan and Ms Loh had also continued to lie to the police together, the lawyer claimed.

Mr Nathan disagreed with all these statements.