THE Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) has dismissed as baseless the Malaysian Bar Council’s accusation that the agency breached Section 46 of the MACC Act 2009 by calling in a lawyer representing an individual under investigation.
MACC Chief Commissioner Tan Sri Azam Baki said the allegation was unfounded, stressing that the lawyer was summoned strictly to provide a witness statement under Sections 30(1) and 30(2) of the Act.
He emphasised that the law grants the commission “clear authority to require any individual to be present and produce documents necessary to assist investigations”.
Speaking at a press conference in Putrajaya, he underscored that no professional group, including lawyers, enjoys exemption from such lawful requirements.
“The law does not provide any exemption for lawyers or any other profession, and Section 46 of the MACC Act 2009 concerning solicitor–client privilege has never been set aside,” Azam said.
“The MACC is not requesting or demanding information contained in confidential advice between a lawyer and their client. What is being requested are evidentiary materials and information in his possession as an individual who holds important knowledge relevant to the investigation.”
The Bar Council had earlier condemned the commission for summoning Mahajoth Singh, counsel for businessman Albert Tei, who is under investigation in a corruption case.
It argued that the action undermined the integrity of professional legal privilege and signalled a troubling encroachment on fundamental safeguards in the justice system. The council claimed that the MACC’s move violated Section 46 of the MACC Act 2009.
Commenting further, Azam said the legal principles are clear: privilege “does not shield a person from the obligation to attend when summoned by an enforcement authority, nor does it protect documents or evidence that are not part of privileged legal advice.”
“In this case, the MACC acted in accordance with proper procedure. The lawyer was only asked to attend like any other witness. This is not a prosecution against him and does not affect his standing as a lawyer for any party,” he said.
“Therefore, it is inaccurate to claim that the MACC violated Section 46 of the MACC Act 2009.”The MACC maintains that its actions were fully compliant with statutory procedure and that solicitor–client confidentiality remains uncompromised.
Commission Provides Evidence To Refute Misconduct Claims During Albert Tei Raid
In a new development, MACC has confirmed that it documented extensive evidence, including video recordings, during its recent operation at the residence of businessman Albert Tei, refuting claims of misconduct by officers involved in the raid.
Azam Baki stated that all officers were equipped with recording devices, including body cameras, ensuring that every action during the operation was captured.
“All actions were carried out in accordance with legal procedures, and our officers were provided with recordings. There is comprehensive evidence available to refute all allegations,” he told a press conference at the MACC headquarters in Putrajaya on Wednesday.
In addition to body camera footage, MACC also obtained recordings from the residence’s closed-circuit television (CCTV) system and filed a police report to demonstrate that there was no abuse of power by the officers.
Azam emphasised that the commission operates strictly under the law and standard operating procedures. “In enforcing the law, we may take any exhibits deemed necessary to assist in investigations,” he said.
He also dismissed claims that an officer had pointed a firearm at Tei’s head during the arrest last Friday.
“The allegation from his wife that our officer threatened him with a pistol is unfounded. We have submitted all recorded evidence to the police, and the officer involved has been called in to assist with the investigation. There is nothing to conceal,” Azam added.
The MACC chief reiterated that the agency is fully cooperative with law enforcement authorities and transparent in its handling of the case. - December 3, 2025
