PUTRAJAYA (Nov 3): A three-member Court of Appeal bench on Tuesday allowed lawyer Mahajoth Singh’s appeal to have the merits of his judicial review challenge against the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) heard.

The challenge concerns the MACC’s actions in compelling him to disclose information and produce documents relating to businessman Albert Tei, which are protected by solicitor-client privilege.

The three-member bench, led by Datuk Seri Mohd Firuz Jaffril, unanimously allowed the appeal and ordered the matter to be remitted for a hearing on its merits.

Firuz sat with judges Datuk Faizah Jamaludin and Datuk Ahmad Shahrir Mohd Salleh. 

Ahmad Shahrir, who delivered the unanimous decision, said the MACC’s investigative actions were not beyond judicial review.

He said the High Court judge was wrong in interpreting the relationship between Sections 30 and 46 of the MACC Act and how they apply 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 protects confidential communications between lawyers and their clients.

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.

 “In our view, the (Mahajoth’s leave) application is arguable and not frivolous. Hence, the appeal is allowed and no order as to costs,” Ahmad Shahrir said.

The proceedings on Tuesday were also attended by Malaysian Bar president Anand Raj, who made submissions in the case.

On Jan 30, High Court judge Alice Loke Yee Ching dismissed Mahajoth’s application for leave to commence a judicial review, ruling that matters relating to the investigative functions of enforcement authorities such as the MACC were not amenable to judicial review.

Surendran told the appellate bench that Mahajoth was in a difficult position as the MACC was compelling him to produce documents under Section 30(1)(b) of the MACC Act.

However, Surendran argued that the information sought by the MACC was protected by solicitor-client privilege under Section 126 of the Evidence Act 1950 and Section 46 of the MACC Act.

The MACC had required Mahajoth to provide information and documents relating to Tei’s mobile phone, retail purchases and copies of WhatsApp conversations between Tei and other individuals.

The lawyer argued that these materials were privileged communications obtained in his capacity as Tei’s solicitor.

Tei is a Malaysian businessman who has faced several corruption-related charges. In December 2025, he was charged in the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court with four counts of offering bribes totalling about RM176,829 to Datuk Seri Shamsul Iskandar Mohd Akin, a former senior political secretary to the prime minister, allegedly to secure approval for mineral exploration licences in Sabah.

Tei pleaded not guilty and was released on bail, subject to conditions including surrendering his passport and reporting to the MACC monthly. His trial has yet to begin.

Read also:
High Court denies judicial review bid by Albert Tei’s lawyer on MACC summons that breaches client-solicitor privilege 
MACC to probe Albert Tei’s lawyer for obstructing bribery investigation
Malaysian Bar warns MACC it cannot access lawyer-client info without consent or court order after Tei’s lawyer is summoned