Singapore finds itself at the centre of a high-profile extradition case involving Paulus Tannos, an Indonesian businessman accused of corruption in a massive scandal linked to Indonesia’s electronic ID card (e-KTP) project. The case, which marks the first extradition request under a recently enacted treaty between the two nations, has sparked intense interest and speculation across the region. At a press conference on 10 March, Singapore’s Law and Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam underscored the city-state’s commitment to handling the matter seriously, even as legal complexities and Tannos’ intent to contest the extradition threaten to prolong the process.
The extradition request, formally submitted by Indonesia on 24 February, comes under the framework of a bilateral treaty that took effect on 21 March 2024. This agreement allows for extradition on charges such as corruption, money laundering, and bribery, and applies retrospectively to crimes committed up to 18 years prior. Tannos, also known as Tjhin Thian Po, was arrested in Singapore on 17 January following a provisional request from Indonesia in December 2024. He is accused of involvement in a graft scandal that allegedly caused state losses of approximately 2.3 trillion rupiah (S$187 million) through irregularities in the e-KTP project. Tannos, who served as president and director of Shandipala Arthaputra, a technology firm contracted for the project, has been on Indonesia’s fugitive list since October 2021 and is believed to have resided in Singapore since 2017.
A Test of Legal and Diplomatic Ties
The case is a significant test of the extradition treaty between Singapore and Indonesia, which aims to strengthen cooperation in combating transnational crime. Speaking at the 10 March press conference, Minister Shanmugam emphasised that Singapore is “fully committed” to its role as a responsible extradition partner. However, he cautioned that the process could extend over two years if Tannos contests every step, as he has indicated through his legal team. “If Tannos doesn’t contest his extradition, he can be extradited in six months, maybe even less,” Shanmugam said. “But he has told the court that he will not consent, and that he will in fact be contesting the extradition.” 
Under Singapore’s Extradition Act, fugitives have the option to waive proceedings and consent to extradition, a practice aligned with international norms to conserve state resources and reduce detention periods. Tannos, however, has opted for a legal battle, assembling a team of lawyers to challenge the request. He is also entitled to apply for bail—a request already made citing an undisclosed medical condition—and to appeal any court decision ordering his extradition. His latest court appearance, scheduled for 7 March, was postponed due to hospitalisation, with a mention set for 13 March and a bail review on 19 March.
The case’s complexity is compounded by Tannos’ claim of holding a diplomatic passport from Guinea-Bissau, a West African nation. During a hearing on 23 January, his legal team raised this point, though Singapore’s State Counsel clarified that Tannos lacks diplomatic immunity as he is not accredited with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. When asked by the judge if he would consent to extradition to Indonesia, Tannos expressed willingness to be sent to Guinea-Bissau instead, a request that was rebuffed. Shanmugam noted that Tannos entered Singapore on a valid passport, ruling out a summary deportation. “It is not like we can just put him on a plane and send him back. There are formal processes,” the minister said.
Background of the e-KTP Scandal
The allegations against Tannos stem from one of Indonesia’s most notorious corruption cases, centred on the national electronic ID card programme. Launched to create a unified identification system, the e-KTP project became mired in accusations of mismanagement and graft, with prosecutors alleging that billions of rupiah were siphoned off through inflated contracts and kickbacks. Tannos’ company, Shandipala Arthaputra, was one of several implicated in the scheme, which reportedly cost the Indonesian state S$187 million in losses. While specific details of Tannos’ alleged role remain under legal scrutiny, his status as a fugitive since 2021 underscores the gravity of the charges.
The case has drawn significant attention in Indonesia, where media outlets have speculated on the reasons behind delays in Tannos’ extradition despite his arrest and the existence of the treaty. Addressing these concerns, Shanmugam clarified that Singapore has been working closely with Indonesian authorities since receiving the provisional arrest request on 19 December 2024. The Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) and the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) reviewed the request, deeming it compliant with the treaty, before securing an arrest warrant on 17 January. Tannos has been remanded without bail since his arrest, though his medical condition has prompted requests for a bail hearing.
Legal Precedents and Challenges
Extradition proceedings in Singapore are known for their adherence to due process, often resulting in lengthy timelines when contested. Shanmugam referenced a prior case involving two Indian brothers, Avanish Kumar Jha and Rajnish Kumar Jha, who were extradited to the United States in February 2025 after a two-year legal process following their arrest in April 2023. That case, involving drug-related charges, stands as one of the longest extradition battles in Singapore’s recent history. Tannos’ situation could follow a similar trajectory, particularly given his legal team’s proactive stance and the potential for appeals at multiple stages.
Legal experts note that extradition cases often hinge on intricate arguments over evidence, the nature of the alleged crime, and the rights of the accused. In Tannos’ case, the diplomatic passport issue, though dismissed as irrelevant to immunity, may resurface as part of his defence strategy. Additionally, his medical condition could become a point of contention in bail hearings, potentially influencing the court’s decisions on detention. Singaporean law prioritises fairness in such proceedings, ensuring that fugitives are not denied their right to a robust defence, even as the government seeks to uphold international agreements.
Broader Implications for Singapore-Indonesia Relations
Beyond the legal intricacies, the Tannos case carries implications for Singapore-Indonesia relations, particularly in the realm of law enforcement cooperation. The extradition treaty, a landmark agreement, reflects a shared commitment to tackling corruption and other cross-border crimes that have long plagued the region. Successful resolution of this case could set a precedent for future collaborations, reinforcing trust between the two nations. However, prolonged delays or a failure to extradite—should Tannos’ legal challenges succeed—may fuel public frustration in Indonesia, where anti-corruption efforts remain a politically charged issue.
Singapore, often seen as a regional hub for financial and legal transparency, faces the challenge of balancing its international obligations with domestic legal standards. The city-state has a reputation for strict enforcement of laws, yet it is equally committed to ensuring that extradition requests meet rigorous criteria. Minister Shanmugam’s assurance that the AGC will “try to expedite the process” signals an intent to navigate this balance, though the timeline remains uncertain given Tannos’ resistance.
Public sentiment in Indonesia, as reflected in media commentary, highlights a broader impatience with the pace of justice in high-profile corruption cases. The e-KTP scandal, emblematic of systemic issues within Indonesia’s governance structures, continues to resonate with citizens demanding accountability. Tannos’ extradition, if achieved, would be a symbolic victory for anti-corruption advocates, though it remains to be seen whether the legal hurdles in Singapore will delay or derail such an outcome.
Regional Context and Transnational Crime
The Tannos case also underscores the persistent challenge of transnational crime in South East Asia, where corruption and money laundering often transcend borders. Singapore’s role as a financial centre makes it a potential refuge for fugitives seeking to evade justice, though its stringent laws and international partnerships aim to counter this perception. The extradition treaty with Indonesia is part of a broader effort to address such issues, with similar agreements in place with other ASEAN nations. Yet, as this case illustrates, legal and procedural differences between countries can complicate enforcement, even when treaties exist.
Analysts suggest that the outcome of Tannos’ case could influence how future extradition requests are handled, not only between Singapore and Indonesia but across the region. If the process is perceived as overly protracted, it may prompt calls for reforms to streamline extradition mechanisms while safeguarding due process. Conversely, a swift resolution—should Tannos eventually consent or lose his legal challenges—could bolster confidence in the treaty’s efficacy.
As Tannos’ next court dates approach, all eyes will be on Singapore’s judicial system to see how it navigates this complex case. The intersection of legal rights, international diplomacy, and public expectations creates a delicate balancing act for the authorities. While Minister Shanmugam and the Ministry of Law have reiterated their commitment to facilitating Indonesia’s request, the reality of contested extradition proceedings means that a resolution may be months, if not years, away.
For now, Tannos remains in custody, his fate tied to a legal process that exemplifies both the strengths and challenges of cross-border cooperation. As the case unfolds, it will serve as a litmus test for Singapore’s extradition framework and its broader role in combating corruption in South East Asia. Whether the outcome strengthens or strains ties with Indonesia, it is clear that the implications of this case will resonate far beyond the courtroom.
