askST: Can Pritam apply to practise law after disbarment?
A disbarred lawyer in Singapore may be eligible to return to practice if the Court of Three Judges determines they are fit to do so. This issue arose after Workers' Party leader Pritam Singh, a former lawyer, was struck off the rolls in August 2026 due to a criminal conviction for providing false information to a parliamentary committee. The Court of Three Judges, the highest disciplinary authority for legal professionals in Singapore, has the power to suspend, fine, or strike off lawyers for professional misconduct. In recent years, several lawyers have been disbarred, including Steven John Lam Kuet Keng for lying about a 2024 drink-driving incident and Charles Yeo for mishandling client funds and fleeing Singapore while on bail. Disbarred lawyers cannot represent clients but may pursue alternative legal careers, such as consulting, training, or writing, until they are potentially reinstated.
Pritam Singh, the leader of Singapore’s Workers’ Party (WP), was formally struck off the rolls of advocates and solicitors on August 13, marking the culmination of a five-year political and legal saga. The disbarment followed his criminal conviction for lying under oath to the Committee of Privileges (COP) during an investigation into former WP MP Raeesah Khan’s false allegations about a sexual assault case. The ruling was delivered by the Court of Three Judges, the highest disciplinary body for Singapore’s legal profession, and Singh did not contest the decision. This outcome has been widely interpreted as bringing closure to a complex and protracted episode that has tested the integrity of both the judiciary and the political system. The saga began in August 2021, when Raeesah Khan, then a WP MP, falsely claimed to have accompanied a sexual assault survivor to a police station where officers allegedly mishandled the case. Khan initially repeated the story in parliamentary debates before eventually confessing to lying in November 2021. The COP was established to investigate her claims, and Singh, who was then a senior party official, testified before the committee. He stated that he had encouraged Khan to come forward with the truth. However, subsequent judicial findings revealed that Singh had also lied under oath, leading to his criminal prosecution. In February 2025, Singh was found guilty of two counts of perjury by a district judge and fined S$14,000 (US$10,900). His appeal to the High Court was rejected in December 2025, confirming his guilt. The Law Society of Singapore (LawSoc), acting under the Legal Profession Act, initiated disciplinary proceedings against Singh in March 2026. The act mandates that legal professionals convicted of offenses involving fraud or dishonesty must face disciplinary action, and LawSoc applied to the Court of Three Judges for Singh to be struck off the rolls. During the disciplinary hearing, LawSoc’s representative, Senior Counsel Cavinder Bull, emphasized that Singh’s case fell squarely within the category of misconduct involving dishonesty. He cited past rulings by Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, who has consistently held that such cases “almost invariably” result in striking off, unless there are truly exceptional circumstances. Bull argued that Singh’s role as an MP and former leader of the opposition only intensified the gravity of his actions, as he had lied to a parliamentary committee examining the credibility of parliamentary statements. Singh’s legal team, led by Senior Counsel Chelva Rajah, acknowledged the court’s ruling and accepted the consequences of his conviction and appeal. Rajah stated that Singh respects the independence and professionalism of Singapore’s judiciary and has no further comment on the disbarment. He noted that while Singh is disappointed with the outcome, he accepts the legal process and its results. The disbarment has broader implications beyond Singh’s personal career. Analysts suggest that the resolution of this case may signal a shift toward greater accountability in Singapore’s political and legal spheres. Assistant Professor Benjamin Joshua Ong of Singapore Management University remarked that the saga underscores the importance of honesty, even in seemingly minor matters, and that the pursuit of truth, despite its costs, is vital for democratic institutions. Other observers, including independent political commentator Dr Felix Tan, noted that while many Singaporeans may be ready to move on from the controversy, some may view the episode as overly politicized. The disbarment also raises questions about the potential for Singh to return to legal practice. While the Legal Profession Act allows for reinstatement applications, the process requires proof of rehabilitation and a sufficiently long period of time since disbarment. Given that Singh was struck off in late 2026, experts suggest that any attempt to regain his license would need to wait several years. The court’s decision leaves open the possibility of future legal action, but for now, the saga appears to have reached its final chapter.
★
Keep the news honest.
ObjectiveNews is reader-funded and ad-free — we show you the bias instead of hiding it. Support independent journalism for €4/month.
Become a Supporter
SG
