.png)
THE High Court has dismissed lawyer Mahajoth Singh’s bid to challenge two Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission notices concerning his interactions with client Albert Tei, reinforcing the principle that matters arising from criminal investigations are not open to judicial review.
High Court judge Alice Loke Yee Chin ruled against Mahajoth’s leave application today, noting that notices issued under Sections 30(1)(a) and 30(1)(b) of the MACC Act, which compel attendance at examinations and production of documents, fall within the commission’s investigative functions.
“The law is clear that matters pertaining to investigative functions of enforcement authorities are not amenable to judicial review,” News Straits Times cited Loke saiying. “The argument that the notices must be issued with a court order is misconceived.”
Mahajoth had sought to challenge the notices, issued on November 29 and 30 last year, arguing that they infringed on his fundamental right to communicate freely with his client.
The MACC had requested a range of materials, including Tei’s mobile phone, documents related to furniture, clothing, and a camera purchase, and copies of WhatsApp conversations with multiple individuals.
The judge found no evidence of bad faith in the issuance of the notices. “As to the point that bad faith is demonstrated because the issuance was in contravention of the law, I do not find it to be established,” Loke said.
“For these reasons, I do not find that an argument has been made for leave to be given… and also the fact that matters of investigative processes are not amenable to judicial review. For that reason, I am dismissing the application for leave.”
Mahajoth’s counsel, N. Surendran, expressed disappointment at the ruling and confirmed that they intend to file an appeal.
“This is a fundamental aspect of legal practice… it cannot be demanded by an enforcement body,” Surendran said.
“We believe the enforcement body should stop this practice as it is unhealthy. This is a matter of public interest.”
The case highlights the ongoing tension between legal professional privilege and the investigatory powers of enforcement authorities in Malaysia, raising questions about the balance between public interest and the rights of lawyers to maintain confidential communication with their clients. - January 30, 2026