Three Activists Fined in Singapore for Pro-Palestine Procession: What Happened?

In a significant legal ruling, three activists in Singapore, including an Indian-origin woman, were fined for organizing a procession supporting Palestine. The High Court overturned their earlier acquittal, emphasizing the importance of understanding public assembly laws. The case highlights the ongoing tensions surrounding protests related to international conflicts. As the activists argue their case, the implications of this ruling could resonate beyond Singapore. Read on to explore the details of this unfolding story and its potential impact on future protests in the region.

By Narendra Chaudhary Apr 30, 2026, 15:56 IST

Activists Face Penalties for Organizing Procession

In Singapore, three activists, including an Indian-origin woman, were each fined USD 2,341 for organizing a procession outside the Presidential Palace in support of Palestine, as reported by local media.

The High Court reversed the earlier acquittal of the trio—Mossammad Sobikun Nahar, 26, Siti Amirah Mohamed Asrori, 30, and Annamalai Kokila Parvathi, 37—who were accused of leading the procession on February 2, 2024, according to The Straits Times.

Justice See Kee Oon upheld the prosecution's appeal against their acquittal, stating that the women had violated the Public Order Act (POA) by organizing a procession in a restricted area around the Istana.

Their attorney, Derek Wong, requested a fine of SGD 3,000, while the Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) Hay Hung Chun did not propose a specific sentence.

The three women contested the charges during a joint trial that commenced in July 2025.

Footage from security cameras showed approximately 70 individuals gathering outside Plaza Singapura, a nearby shopping center, before proceeding towards the Istana with umbrellas decorated in a watermelon design, symbolizing the colors of the Palestinian flag.

In October 2025, the district judge, John Ng, acquitted the women, stating they could not have reasonably known that their route was prohibited.

He emphasized that the prosecution needed to prove both the physical act and the mental state required for the offense.

On April 30, the DPP argued for the reversal of the acquittal, claiming the district judge misapplied the legal standards regarding the mental element of the offense.

The DPP clarified that the charges were based on what the women 'ought reasonably to have known' about the prohibited area, rather than actual knowledge.

He pointed out that the women were aware of police advisories against events related to the Israel-Hamas conflict and noted that Siti and Sobikun had prior knowledge of a canceled event linked to the same cause.

The DPP also mentioned that information regarding public assemblies was readily accessible online.

In response, Wong maintained that the district judge had applied the correct legal standards and that understanding the POA did not equate to knowing the specifics of prohibited areas.