MACC appeal quashed, court says unlawful to question lawyers over client’s case

Sivarasa, representing fellow lawyers Latheefa Koyah and Murnie Hidayah, called the decision by the Appelate Court historic. - The Malaysian Insider pic, November 17, 2014.The Court of Appeal has concurred with a High Court decision which revoked a notice issued by Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) to two lawyers in connection with investigations into the National Feedlot Corporation (NFC).

A three-man bench chaired by Datuk Linton Albert in dimissing the appeal by MACC said today there was no reason for the appellate court to disturb the findings of the High Court judge early last year.

Lawyer Sivarasa Rasiah appeared for Latheefa Koya and Murnie Hidayah Anuar while Senior Federal Counsel Suzana Atan represented the MACC, Putrajaya and MACC assistant superintendent Suziana Ali.

On January 31 last year, Justice Datuk Zaleha Yusof, who allowed a judicial review application by the lawyers, had ruled that the notice issued (under Section 48(c) of the MACC Act) was illegal and an abuse of power.

The lawyers had asked the court to quash a March 19, 2012 notice by the MACC, compelling them to give statements.

The two also sought a declaration that the notice was invalid and MACC officers had no authority to record statements from lawyers accompanying their clients.

Zaleha had said that evidence revealed that the lawyers did not interfere when the client was being interviewed by MACC officials.

“I do not see any logic of the MACC ordering the lawyers to give statements on the pretext of assisting in the investigations," she had said in her 10-page judgment.

She said it was an act of intimidation by MACC officers in an attempt to obtain privileged information between clients and lawyers.

Zaleha said it must be remembered that the independence of lawyers was a fundamental principle recognised internationally.

The two lawyers had contended that the notice which required them to be present at the MACC headquarters in Putrajaya on March 23, 2012 to assist in investigations involving NFC executive chairman Datuk Seri Dr Mohamad Salleh Ismail was void and against Article 5(2) of the Federal Constitution.

The two, who are representing former NFC consultant Datuk Shamsubahrin Ismail, claimed they were served the notice after accompanying their client to the MACC office to give his statement regarding Mohamad Salleh’s case.

Failure to abide by the notice is an offence under Section 48(c) of the MACC Act and punishable with a maximum RM10,000 fine or two years’ jail or both, upon conviction.

Sivarasa later told The Malaysian Insider that this was a ground breaking ruling as the Malaysian court had recognised the role of lawyers in discharging their duties.

"The MACC cannot force lawyers to give statements unless it is proven that they are material witnesses." he added.

- TMI