LFL hails court ruling on MACC's bid to compel lawyer to disclose client information

 

The use of criminal investigative powers against lawyers representing their clients strikes at the heart of the administration of justice.

This risks turning the machinery of law into an instrument of intimidation against those entrusted with upholding it, Lawyers for Liberty (LFL) said in welcoming the Court of Appeal’s intervention in the case involving businessperson Albert Tei’s lawyer, Mahajoth Singh.

LFL said such practices amounted to harassment and intimidation, with implications that extended well beyond the lawyers concerned to the public’s fundamental right to effective legal representation.

A three-member Court of Appeal bench yesterday unanimously allowed Mahajoth’s appeal, paving the way for his judicial review challenge against the MACC to be heard on its merits.

The challenge centres on the commission’s attempts to compel the lawyer to surrender information and documents relating to Tei, which Mahajoth (above) contends are protected by solicitor-client privilege.

“The privilege is fundamentally important to enable the public to obtain effective legal representation,” said LFL director Rania Aljunied.

She said the appellate court’s decision also carried a broader message for enforcement agencies.

“It sends a strong signal that criminal investigative bodies such as the MACC or police should not encroach upon the duties of lawyers to fearlessly represent the public,” she added.

Misinterpretation

The appellate court directed that the matter be remitted to the High Court for a substantive hearing, making clear that the MACC’s investigative functions were not beyond the reach of judicial review.

In allowing the appeal, the appellate court also found that the High Court had misinterpreted the relationship between Sections 30 and 46 of the MACC Act and their application alongside Section 126 of the Evidence Act.

Section 30 outlines the commission’s investigative powers, while Section 46 empowers it to require advocates and solicitors to disclose information. Section 126 of the Evidence Act, meanwhile, protects confidential communications between lawyers and their clients.

The case arose from a Jan 30 ruling by High Court judge Alice Loke, who dismissed Mahajoth’s application for leave to commence judicial review.

She had held that matters concerning the investigative functions of enforcement agencies, including the MACC, were not amenable to judicial review.

The commission had sought information and documents from Mahajoth relating to Tei’s mobile phone, retail transactions, and WhatsApp exchanges with other individuals.

Mahajoth argued that the materials were protected by legal professional privilege, as they were obtained in his capacity as Tei’s solicitor.

Tei exposed the Sabah mining scandal in 2024, which implicated more than a dozen politicians, including Shamsul Iskandar Akin, a former aide to Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim. - Mkini