Court of Appeal allows judicial review challenge against MACC actions to be heard

Traders Union
All News
Regulators
Challenge to judicial review of MACC actions

Highlights

The Court of Appeal allowed Mahajoth Singh’s appeal and ordered that the judicial review of the MACC’s investigative actions be heard on its merits.
The panel said the High Court had erred in interpreting the relationship between Sections 30 and 46 of the MACC Act and Section 126 of the Evidence Act, reopening the issue of solicitor-client privilege.
The decision could have broader implications for the limits of the MACC’s investigative powers and the protection of professional confidentiality in Malaysia’s legal sector.

This article was translated from the original. Read the original version by our correspondent here.

Merits hearing reopened in Putrajaya

The Edge Malaysia reported that a three-judge Court of Appeal panel unanimously allowed Mahajoth Singh’s appeal and ordered the case to be sent back for a hearing on its merits.

The decision was delivered by Datuk Ahmad Shahrir Mohd Salleh, who sat with Datuk Seri Mohd Firuz Jaffril and Datuk Faizah Jamaludin. The panel said that MACC’s investigative actions were not beyond the scope of judicial review, and that Mahajoth’s application for leave was arguable and not frivolous.

The panel also said the High Court judge had erred in interpreting the relationship between Sections 30 and 46 of the MACC Act and their application alongside Section 126 of the Evidence Act. Section 30 concerns the MACC’s investigative powers, while Section 46 empowers the commission to require advocates and solicitors to disclose information.

Section 126 of the Evidence Act, in turn, protects confidential communications between lawyers and their clients. On that basis, the central issue in the challenge is whether the documents and information sought by the MACC are protected by solicitor-client privilege.

Implications for the investigation and the Albert Tei case

At the Court of Appeal, Mahajoth was represented by N Surendran, Latheefa Koya and Rajesh Nagarajan, while Senior Federal Counsel Datuk Shamsul Bolhassan appeared for the Attorney General and the MACC. Malaysian Bar president Anand Raj was also present and made submissions in the proceedings.

Surendran argued that his client was in a difficult position because the MACC was compelling him to produce documents under Section 30(1)(b) of the MACC Act. He said the information sought, including material relating to Tei’s mobile phone, retail purchases and copies of WhatsApp conversations between Tei and other individuals, was protected by solicitor-client privilege.

On 30 Jan, the High Court dismissed Mahajoth’s application for leave to commence judicial review, ruling that the investigative functions of enforcement authorities such as the MACC were not subject to judicial review. The Court of Appeal’s new decision has now put the issue back before the courts, with potentially broader implications for the limits of investigative powers and the protection of professional confidentiality in Malaysia’s legal sector.

Tei, a Malaysian businessman, faces several corruption-related charges. In December 2025, he was charged at the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court with four counts of offering bribes totalling approximately RM176,829 to Datuk Seri Shamsul Iskandar Mohd Akin, a former senior political secretary to the prime minister, to secure approval for mineral exploration licences in Sabah. Tei pleaded not guilty, was released on bail, and his trial has yet to begin.

In our earlier article, the Court of Appeal’s ruling on the liability of commission-based partners in a law firm explained that lawyers paid a salary or commission could still be regarded as partners under the Partnership Act 1961 and held liable for the firm’s debts. The case involved a claim for unpaid proceeds from the sale of a house, and the court overturned the findings of two lower courts, signalling that partnership structures in law firms can carry broader liability risks.

This material may contain third-party opinions, none of the data and information on this webpage constitutes investment advice according to our Disclaimer. While we adhere to strict Editorial Integrity, this post may contain references to products from our partners.