LETTER | We express our deep concern over the actions reportedly taken by the MACC against lawyer Mahajoth Singh, which appear to constitute an infringement of lawyer-client privilege and a threat to the independence of the legal profession.
According to the information received, the MACC has issued statutory notices under the MACC Act 2009 compelling Mahajoth to produce documents and provide testimony in connection with an ongoing investigation involving one of his clients.
Mahajoth (above) maintains that compliance with these notices would require him to disclose information protected by the lawyer–client privilege. On this basis, he has filed an application for judicial review seeking to quash the MACC’s orders.
The hearing for leave to commence judicial review was held on Jan 6, and the court’s decision, expected to be delivered on Jan 30, will prove pivotal in determining whether leave to commence judicial review against the MACC’s statutory notices is allowed.
Lawyers for Lawyers is further alarmed by reports that the MACC has publicly accused Mahajoth of obstructing justice and indicated that he is being investigated on that basis.
On the night of Nov 29, the MACC reportedly served Mahajoth a notice ordering him to appear for questioning at the MACC headquarters the following morning, in connection with an investigation involving his client.
The summons, which was issued shortly after Mahajoth had been denied access to his client in detention, has been described by local rights groups as “unlawful and as a blatant act of intimidation against a lawyer acting in the course of his work”.
In addition, it was reported that Mahajoth received threatening phone calls and that MACC officers were attempting to detain him for questioning.
Furthermore, Mahajoth reported that five officers were sent to his office on a Sunday, a visit he described as “unnecessary and amounted to harassment”. If confirmed, such actions would raise serious concerns of intimidation and harassment of a lawyer in connection with the legitimate exercise of his professional duties.
The principles of legal professional privilege and lawyer–client confidentiality are fundamental to the right to a fair trial and the proper administration of justice. These principles are firmly established in international standards, including the United Nations Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers.
Principle 22 provides that “Governments shall recognise and respect that all communications and consultations between lawyers and their clients within their professional relationship are confidential.”
Principle 8 further affirms that “All arrested, detained or imprisoned persons shall be provided with adequate opportunities, time and facilities to be visited by and to communicate and consult with a lawyer, without delay, interception or censorship and in full confidentiality […].”
While the principle of lawyer–client confidentiality is not absolute, any limitations on this principle must be clearly provided for by law and/or applicable rules of professional conduct.
MACC Act
Under Malaysian law, lawyer-client confidentiality is afforded protection under Section 126 of the Evidence Act 1950, which provides that “No advocate shall at any time be permitted, unless with his client’s express consent, to disclose any communication made to him in the course and for the purpose of his employment as such advocate” subject only to limited and exceptional circumstances.
Moreover, Section 46(2) of the MACC Act 2009 expressly recognises that the MACC’s investigative powers do not override privileged communications, and that any order for disclosure may only be made by a High Court judge, subject to the continued protection of privileged information.
The Malaysian Bar has publicly reaffirmed the centrality of this principle, referring to Section 46 as a “statutory firewall” and underscoring that “privilege cannot be treated as overridden merely because an investigation is underway”.
In the same statement dated Dec 1, 2025, the bar further expressed grave concern over the MACC’s actions, emphasising that such concerns “are not new” and reiterating its longstanding position that professional legal privilege must be strictly safeguarded.
Lawyers for Lawyers is concerned that the actions reportedly taken against Mahajoth may amount to undue interference with the independence of the legal profession, particularly given that the legal procedures and safeguards expressly provided for under Malaysian law do not appear to have been respected.
Attempts to compel disclosure of privileged information without due process undermine the rule of law and risk creating a chilling effect on lawyers and their clients. The erosion of legal professional privilege may also jeopardise other fundamental rights, including equality of arms and the right to an effective legal defence.
We urge the authorities to fully respect domestic and international legal standards protecting lawyer-client confidentiality, due process, and the independence of lawyers. Furthermore, we call on the authorities to ensure that no retaliatory measures are taken against Mahajoth for the legitimate exercise of his professional responsibilities.
LAWYERS FOR LAWYERS is an independent Dutch foundation supporting lawyers worldwide who are threatened or suppressed for their work.
The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of Malaysiakini.
