PUTRAJAYA: The Court of Appeal has granted lawyer Mahajoth Singh leave to commence a judicial review challenging two orders issued by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) against him.
A three-member bench comprising Justices Datuk Seri Firuz Jaffril, Datuk Faizah Jamaludin and Datuk Ahmad Shahrir Mohd Salleh allowed Mahajoth's appeal to set aside the High Court's decision dismissing his leave application.
Justice Ahmad Shahrir, who delivered the unanimous decision, remitted the case to the High Court to hear its substantive merits.
"In our view, the (Mahajoth's leave) application is arguable and not frivolous.
Ahmad Shahrir said the High Court judge had erred in determining the relationship between Section 30 and Section 46 of the MACC Act as well as the scope of Section 126 of the Evidence Act 1950.
He said the appellate court was of the view that those questions are best addressed at the substantive hearing of the judicial review.
On Jan 30, 2026, the Kuala Lumpur High Court dismissed Mahajoth's application for leave to initiate the judicial review challenging the two orders issued to him in connection with his client, businessman Datuk Albert Tei Jiann Cheing.
Mahajoth was appointed solicitor for Tei, who was detained by MACC on Nov 28, 2025.
Mahajoth is seeking a certiorari order to quash an order compelling him to attend MACC headquarters in Putrajaya for oral examination and to produce documents and items related to Tei, as part of an investigation under Section 30(1)(b) of the MACC Act.
He claimed the orders under the MACC Act contravened the statutory protection of privileged communication between solicitor and client under Section 126 of the Evidence Act.
During the Court of Appeal proceedings, counsel N. Surendran, representing Mahajoth, submitted that the issues raised are novel and ought to be heard at the substantive stage as they involve the legal position on solicitor-client privilege.
Senior federal counsel Datuk Shamsul Bolhassan, assisted by federal counsel Krishna Priya Venugopal, appearing for the Attorney General, argued that the subject matter is not amenable to judicial review, as the orders to examine the appellant and to produce documents under Section 30(1)(b) of the MACC Act are an exercise of a function in the course of a criminal investigation.
The Malaysian Bar was also allowed to intervene in the appeal. – Bernama
