AGC argues MACC probes beyond court scrutiny in lawyer's legal challenge

The Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) has argued that the MACC’s investigations are not subject to judicial scrutiny, in opposing the bid by Albert Tei’s lawyer, Mahajoth Singh, to challenge two notices from the graft busters.

The submission was made during a hearing in the Kuala Lumpur High Court today for a judicial review application brought by Mahajoth (above), who is opposing the MACC’s alleged breach of lawyer-client privilege.

In particular, Mahajoth is seeking a certiorari order to quash two notices issued under the MACC Act 2009. One notice under Section 30(1)(a) requested Mahajoth’s attendance at MACC’s headquarters, while another issued under Section 30(1)(b) required him to produce documents and a handphone.

Mahajoth told Malaysiakini that during submissions before judge Alice Loke this morning, legal representatives for the AGC premised their objections to his legal challenge on a 2017 decision by the Federal Court in a similar case.

In a unanimous decision on Aug 9, 2017, the apex court determined that, in the process of a criminal investigation, one cannot apply for a judicial review.

The Federal Court’s ruling quashed the legal challenge initiated by lawyers Latheefa Koya and Murnie Hidayah Anuar, who had filed a judicial review application after receiving a notice dated March 19, 2012, requiring them to present themselves at the MACC headquarters in Putrajaya.

The duo, who were then representing the National Feedlot Corporation Sdn Bhd (NFC) consultant, Shamsubahrin Ismail, were summoned to assist in investigations involving NFC executive chairperson Salleh Ismail.

In 2013, the Kuala Lumpur High Court granted the lawyers’ judicial review, ruling that the MACC notice issued to the lawyers was an abuse of power. The following year, the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s decision.

Exemption for mala fide cases possible

Mahajoth, however, said his lawyers today countered the submission put forth by the senior federal counsels by highlighting, among others, that in its 2017 judgement, the Federal Court had made an exemption for “cases of mala fide (bad faith).”

The AGC was represented by senior federal counsels Shamsul Bolhassan, Nurhafizza Azizan, and Krishna Priya Venugopal.

Lawyers who appeared for Mahajoth include N Surendran, Shahid Adli Kamarudin, Rajesh Nagarajan, and Zaid Malek.

Loke set Jan 28 to deliver her decision on the judicial review application.

In his supporting affidavit for the application, Mahajoth had asserted that the MACC’s orders to him, issued on Nov 30 last year, constituted an abuse of power, given that the documents and items the anti-graft agency sought were provided to him to allow Tei to seek legal advice.

Zaid said on Dec 1 that he had gone to MACC’s headquarters and served a letter on lawyer-client privilege to its officers, but the commission refused to acknowledge it.

On the same day, a source told Malaysiakini that the MACC was concerned that evidence involving Tei would be destroyed.

On Dec 3, MACC chief commissioner Azam Baki said that Mahajoth is perceived as a witness who could assist their investigation into Tei, and that they have opened an investigation against the lawyer over his refusal to help.

Tei was nabbed on Nov 28 and remanded for five days before he was charged at the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court on Dec 4 and in the Shah Alam Sessions Court on Dec 5.

The businessperson was charged with giving bribes to Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim’s former senior political aide, Shamsul Iskandar Akin, who was also charged with receiving bribes from Tei.

Both of them claimed trial to the charges.

Albert, lawyer not ruling out suing MACC over Puchong house raid

Albert's lawyer insists police, MACC release raid footage

Lawyer slams cops for seeking privileged info from Albert's counsel

Albert's lawyer gives PKR Youth 48 hours to voice out on corruption cases