Indonesian fugitive fails in latest bid to challenge extradition proceedings in Singapore

SINGAPORE - Indonesian businessman Paulus Tannos, who is wanted in his country for his alleged role in a corruption case, has failed in his latest attempt to challenge being extradited from Singapore.

In a written judgment on Aug 17, a High Court judge dismissed Tannos’ argument that the extradition request by Indonesian authorities was not supported by a properly authenticated and legally valid arrest warrant.

The 72-year-old Singapore permanent resident had sought redress in the form of bail pending the conclusion of the extradition proceedings, disclosure of documents pertaining to the arrest warrant, and recourse to Indonesian expert evidence.

Justice Aidan Xu also ruled the current application was procedurally improper.

Tannos, who is also known as Tjhin Thian Po, was arrested in January 2025 by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau following an extradition request by the Indonesian government.

The request concerns his alleged role in a corruption scandal connected to the Indonesian government’s issuing of electronic ID cards, an initiative known as the e-KTP project. It allegedly caused state losses of about 2.3 trillion rupiah (S$187 million).

He is in remand awaiting committal proceedings to decide whether he should be extradited.

Tannos had previously sought bail on grounds of ill health.

His application was dismissed at both the State Courts and in the High Court, which found that the Singapore Prison Service was able to reasonably manage his medical conditions and that he posed a flight risk.

Tannos had also applied for permission to seek judicial review of the Singapore Law Minister’s decision to issue a formal notice that allows the extradition hearing to proceed.

The application was dismissed by the High Court, which found that the evidence did not disclose an arguable case of reasonable suspicion in favour of granting the remedies he sought.

Translations disputed

In the current application, Tannos challenged the extradition request largely on the grounds of the accuracy and reliability of the translations of the relevant documents.

One was an Indonesian-language document, and the other was an English-language document titled “arrest warrant”.

Tannos, who was self-represented, argued both documents differed materially in their content and legal effect, and that the Indonesian-language document was not accompanied by an authenticated translation.

He also argued the person who signed the documents - Nurul Ghufron, who was vice-chairman of Indonesia’s anti-corruption agency KPK - did not have the authority under Indonesian law, which requires an arrest or apprehension order to be issued by an investigator.

On these grounds, Tannos characterised his case as a “special case” that warranted bail.

The prosecution countered that bail is permitted only where the fugitive is a juvenile, where the fugitive is sick or infirm in a manner that cannot be adequately managed within the prison system, or where the requesting state does not oppose bail.

The prosecution argued his bid for bail sought to revisit matters already determined in the previous decision and was procedurally irregular.

In addition, the prosecution argued that Tannos’ case was not supported by any legal or evidential foundation as he was neither qualified to give on opinion on the translation of the documents from Bahasa Indonesia into English, nor on Indonesian law.

In his judgment, Justice Xu emphasised that the insistence on proper procedure was not mere red tape.

He said: “The proper process must be followed, so that it is clear what rules and what standards apply. The court’s powers are derived from these procedural rules and can only be invoked if the procedure laid down according to law are followed.”

On the issue of the alleged differences between the two documents, the judge noted that Tannos himself was uncertain whether the English-language document was even a translation of the Indonesian-language document.

In any event, these are matters that would be considered in the committal hearing, he noted.

The judge agreed with the prosecution that Tannos did not fall within any of the limited circumstances where bail is permitted under the Extradition Act.