Lawyers for Liberty (LFL) director Zaid Malek claimed that MACC officers had refused to acknowledge a letter on client-solicitor privilege, which he served to them by hand this morning.
He told Malaysiakini that the letter was served when he accompanied businessperson Albert Tei’s lawyer, Mahajoth Singh, who was summoned by MACC for questioning today. The meeting with the officers lasted about 30 minutes.
“We’re saying (in the letter) that the notices they served to Mahajoth yesterday were invalid, it’s against the law as the notice is trying to compel him to disclose privileged information which (the MACC) cannot do.
“I served them the letter and asked them to acknowledge it. They had refused to acknowledge the letter (so) I put my foot down, explained the letter (again), and we left. We see no point in discussing, as they refuse to acknowledge the letter.
“There were no questions (involving Mahajoth) today. Because our stance is to tell MACC that they cannot do this, with regard to the representation of Tei.
“Mahajoth cannot divulge any information, (so) how can he produce any documents requested? He cannot breach his duty as a lawyer (just) to comply with MACC’s notice,” he said, in claiming that the officers who attended to them had ‘kicked up a fuss’ when the letter was served.
Zaid, who appeared as Mahajoth’s lawyer in today’s meeting at MACC, said he had explained to the officers that serving letters and acknowledgements are “a normal thing”.
“You serve a notice, I acknowledge. I serve you a letter, you (should) acknowledge (as well). But, they refused.”
‘Under strong protest’
Mahajoth had appeared at the MACC headquarters today following the notices served by MACC officers when they tried to enter his office last night, issued under Sections 30(1)(a) and 30(1)(b) of the MACC Act 2009, which request his attendance and seek certain documents and a handphone.
“I accepted these fresh notices under strong protest, and I will attend the questioning at MACC headquarters under the same protest.
“I am bound by solicitor–client privilege. This has been explained clearly in my lawyers’ letter (on Sunday), and it is a fundamental principle of Malaysian law and the wider Commonwealth.
“I cannot lawfully disclose privileged communications or materials, and it is unfathomable that the MACC appears unable or unwilling to understand this basic legal safeguard.”
Yesterday, Zaid said that MACC summoning counsel into an investigation intrudes upon the confidential solicitor–client communications, and that it is a serious violation of Section 126 of the Evidence Act 1950 and Section 46 of the MACC Act 2009, which protect communications between lawyer and client.
He added that the attempt to haul the lawyer for interrogation is tantamount to an attack on the administration of justice and the independence of the legal profession.
Today, LFL’s co-founder, Eric Paulsen, urged the MACC to cease all efforts and attempts to subject Mahajoth to an investigation, as he is a lawyer who is merely fulfilling his professional obligation.
Paulsen added that MACC’s move to question Mahajoth amounts to unwarranted harassment, which constitutes a grave intrusion upon the independence of the legal profession and an affront to the fundamental principle of lawyer-client privilege.
Notice defective, wrong in law, invalid
The letter, sighted by Malaysiakini, was issued by Messrs Daim & Gamany today, and addressed to the MACC and one of its heads of department, stating that the two notices issued under Section 30(1) of the MACC Act are defective.
“We are instructed to state that the first notice (issued under Section 30(1)(a) to record a statement is on the same complaint number as (those) related to Tei’s case. Therefore, our client is prohibited from answering questions or giving information as per Section 126 of the Evidence Act and Section 46 of the MACC Act.
“Regarding the second notice under Section 30(1)(b), we are instructed to state that the category of documents specified (in the notice) clearly encompasses or includes information involving protected communications as per Section 126 of the Evidence Act and Section 46 of the MACC Act.
“In view of these matters, both the said notices were defective, invalid and wrong in law,” said the letter, in which it added that any notice issued under Section 30(1)(a) and (b) which are read together with Section 48(c) of the MACC Act, or any notice or order must be ‘valid’.”
It further said that their client, Mahajoth, is ready to comply with any court order under Section 46(1) of the Act if it is served on him.
Heavy-handed raid
MACC raided Tei’s residence in Puchong on Nov 28, where officers in bulletproof vests and balaclavas arrested the businessperson.
Tei, the central figure in a slew of corruption allegations against prominent Sabah politicians, was seen raising his hands to the camera several times while chanting “lawan tetap lawan” (we fight on) before he was placed inside an unmarked car.
Tei’s wife, Lee Pei Rie, claimed that the MACC officers manhandled her husband and pointed their guns at both the businessperson and her during the raid.
MACC denied the claims, prompting Lee to lodge a police report.
The raid and arrest followed Tei’s recent accusation against Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim’s former aide, Shamsul Iskandar Akin, whom the businessperson claimed he had spent RM629,000 on after being assured that the PKR man could help recoup money channelled to politicians in Sabah.
Besides funding renovations, appliances, and furnishings for two properties, Tei claimed he had spent thousands of ringgit on premium cigars and tailored suits for Shamsul, who also purportedly requested money from the businessperson while travelling abroad.
Both Shamsul and Tei, as well as a woman accused of being the Malacca PKR chief’s proxy, were arrested on Friday. Shamsul and Tei have been remanded for six days. - Mkini
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.