The court affirmed that state immunity is a procedural bar preventing jurisdiction over foreign sovereign acts, while extra territoriality requires careful legal scrutiny under domestic constitutional rights.

Nallini Pathmanathan FCJ:

Introduction

[1] These appeals concern the concepts of sovereign or state immunity and extra territoriality 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 extra territorial 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 methodof execution of the death penalty in Singapore was unlawful and brutal ('LFL Press Statement'); and 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

(iv) in the event the application for variation or cancellation was refused, the Respondent could appeal to the High Court of Singapore to set aside the correction direction.

[5] The Respondent did not comply with the correction direction and, instead proceeded to file the two applications in the High Court , by way of Originating Summonses (OS), namely OS 46 and OS 51.

[6] In OS 46 against the Government of Malaysia, the Respondent sought the following reliefs -

(i) a declaration that the Respondent has the right to express their opinion in Malaysia with regard to any matters, pursuant to art 10(1)(a) of the Federal Constitution;

(ii) a declaration that the Respondent's rights could not be impaired by a law in Singapore, namely the POFMA, which purports to extend beyond Singapore, that is assuming extra-territorial jurisdiction; and

(iii) a declaration that the Respondent could not be subjected to any process within Malaysia in furtherance of the Singapore law.

[7] In OS 51, against the Singapore Home Affairs Minister, the Respondent sought the following reliefs-

(i) a declaration that the direction issued by the Singapore Home Affairs Minister could not be enforced against the Respondent in Malaysia;

(ii) a declaration that the Singapore Home Affairs Minister, or anyone acting under his authority, could not take any action to enforce any provision of the POFMA against the R