Lawyers accompanying witnesses to the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) can be issued a notice and have their statements recorded by the authorities, the Federal Court ruled today.

In an unanimous decision, a five-member bench led by Chief Justice of Malaya Ahmad Ma'arop overturned the decision by the High Court, which was also affirmed by the Court of Appeal.

Federal Court judge Justice Abu Samah Nordin, who wrote the judgment, said in the process of a criminal investigation, one cannot apply for judicial review.

“(By allowing so), it would expose the criminal investigation to be subject to judicial review and this is not the intention of Parliament,” he said.

“Hence, we are allowing the appeal by the appellants (the MACC, the government and MACC assistant superintendent Suziana Ali),” he said.

Justice Abu Samah made no order as to costs, despite senior federal counsel Suzana Atan, who appeared for the MACC and the government, applied for RM30,000 to be awarded as costs.

The other judges who made the decision were Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak Justice Richard Malanjum and Federal Court judges, Justice Hasan Lah and Justice Balia Yusof Wahi.

Lawyers M Puravalen and Shahid Adli appeared for Latheefa Koya and Murnie Hidayah Anuar.

Latheefa and Murnie, who were representing the National Feedlot Corporation Sdn Bhd consultant Shamsubahrin Ismail, had filed the judicial review application and named the MACC, the government and Suziana, who issued the notice, as respondents.

They said the notice, dated March 19, 2012, required them to be present at the MACC headquarters in Putrajaya on March 23 to assist in investigations involving NFC executive chairperson Mohamad Salleh Ismail.

They contended that the notice was void and contravened provisions under Article 5(2) of the Federal Constitution on the liberty of a person and claimed that the notice was served on them after they accompanied Shamsubahrin to give his statement.

MACC had argued that Section 31(a) of the MACC Act 2009 allows the investigating officer to summon any person who might assist in the investigation of an offence and that person might not necessarily be suspects or witnesses.

The MACC added that its officers, when conducting investigations, are protected from any legal action in court under Section 72 of the MACC Act.

The High Court had, on Jan 2013, ruled that the notice issued to the lawyers was considered an abuse of power and was therefore invalid and could not be enforced.

The Court of Appeal in November 2014 upheld the High Court decision.