Recently, there was a great concern surrounding the arrest of Albert Tei, whereby even the lawyer present at the scene whilst arrest and search were being conducted highlighted serious concerns - the arresting officers came in Balaclavas (masks covering their face preventing identification), and even refused to identify themselves to the lawyer, refused to even tell the lawyer where arrested Albert Tei was being taken, failed to inform the lawyer too of the reason for the arrest, search or even what was taken from Albert's premises - this is AGAINST the law, for the authorities should have identified themselves, etc - see
MACC - Balaclava, Arrest of Albert Tei, INDEPENDENCE, - Place MACC under EAIC, who can investigate allegations against MACC?
Thereafter, Albert's lawyer was issued a notice summoning him to be investigated or to record a statement - the Malaysian Bar issued a statement on this dealing with the issue of 'Legal Profession Privilege'
When one is faced with questioning - one CAN REFUSE to answer questions if the answer would have a tendency to expose him to a criminal charge or penalty or forfeiture. This is not just about criminal charges, but also civil suits > thus for a lawyer, he should not answer questions that violate 'solicitor-client privilege' - for if he does, he is at risk of being sued by the client, and even may be subjected to disciplinary proceedings. Whatever a client tells the lawyer must be kept CONFIDENTIAL - a lawyer is duty bound to do so.
Section 112 Criminal Procedure Code - Examination of witnesses by police
...(2) Such person shall be bound to answer all questions relating to the case put to him by that officer:
Provided that such person may refuse to answer any question the answer to which would have a tendency to expose him to a criminal charge or penalty or forfeiture.
This right to REFUSE to answer any questions is available not just to lawyers - but to everyone being questioned by police and law enforcement.
### It would have been good if the Bar Council had also issued a Media Statement - about the other issues not just the question of legal professional privilege...but they haven't done so YET - maybe they will do so in the near future...
Malaysian Bar Reiterates that Legal Professional Privilege Must be Upheld
1 Dec 2025 1:59 pm
The Malaysian Bar is gravely concerned by recent reports that the Malaysian Anti‑Corruption Commission (“MACC”) has issued a notice summoning counsel representing a person under investigation.1 This step undermines the integrity of legal professional privilege.
The actions of MACC are deeply troubling, as they signal an encroachment on rights central to the administration of justice. As we have reminded MACC in our previous press release dated 11 June 2025 titled “The Importance of Protecting Legal Professional Privilege and the Right to Representation”,2 the right to counsel and legal professional privilege is the cornerstone of a fair and just legal system, ensuring that individuals can seek and receive confidential legal advice without fear of reprisal or breach of confidentiality.
The Malaysian Bar condemns in the strongest terms the recent actions of the MACC, which are in direct violation of section 46 of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 (“MACC Act”), which provides the following:
“Advocates and solicitors may be required to disclose information
46. (1) Notwithstanding any other written law, a Judge of the High Court may, on application being made to him in relation to an investigation into any offence under this Act, order an advocate and solicitor to disclose information available to him in respect of any transaction or dealing relating to any property which is liable to seizure under this Act.
(2) Nothing in subsection (1) shall require an advocate and solicitor to comply with any order under that subsection to the extent that such compliance would disclose any privileged information or communication which came to his knowledge for the purpose of any pending proceedings.”
Section 46 of the MACC Act serves as a statutory firewall, safeguarding the confidentiality of legal advice that is fundamental to the proper administration of justice. It clearly sets out that enforcement officers must not compel the production of privileged material, inspect or read any documents once privilege is asserted, or proceed without first obtaining a determination from the High Court where the existence of privilege is disputed. Privilege cannot be treated as overridden merely because an investigation is underway. Any attempt to circumvent these protections is inconsistent with the clear intent of Parliament, and undermines the rule of law.
Legal professional privilege allows clients to speak openly with their lawyers and to disclose sensitive information in confidence, so that proper legal advice can be given. If privilege is eroded, public confidence in the justice system and the legal profession would inevitably deteriorate. The fact that a request comes from an enforcement authority does not dilute or change the nature of privilege. This principle was firmly affirmed by the Federal Court in Tan Chong Kean v Yeoh Tai Chuan & Anor.3
In the light of the clear statutory protections under section 46 of the MACC Act and the unequivocal stance of the courts, privileged documents and communications must remain beyond the reach of enforcement agencies, including the MACC, unless expressly authorised by the client or pursuant to a specific order from the High Court.
These concerns are not new. Over the past decade, the Malaysian Bar has consistently emphasised the importance of protecting privileged material, in its official circulars. Circulars Number 096/20184 and 250/20195 addressed declaratory relief sought in response to demands by the Inland Revenue Board (Lembaga Hasil Dalam Negeri Malaysia) for client account information. Subsequent circulars, including Circulars Number 156/20216 and 073/2023,7 reflected the Bar’s position, held by the High Court and affirmed by the Court of Appeal and Federal Court, in Director General of Inland Revenue v Malaysian Bar. Circular No 145/20248 clarified that while routine office-account information may be provided to tax authorities, client-account records remain firmly protected by legal professional privilege.
The more recent circulars — Circulars Number 209/20249 and 253/202410 — provided guidance on what to do in the event of investigations conducted by enforcement agencies, the protection of privileged materials, and procedures during dawn raids or when enforcement officers attend law firms. Taken together, these measures underscore our long-standing, consistent position: client communications and documents are sacrosanct and cannot be accessed without proper authorisation, and any violation of these principles threatens both the rule of law and the integrity of the legal profession.
The Malaysian Bar stands ready to support or initiate appropriate legal action to uphold the rule of law, safeguard the integrity of legal representation, and defend the fundamental right to confidential legal advice. Legal professional privilege is not a convenience — it is essential to an effective justice system. The Malaysian Bar remains resolute in defending that principle.
Mohamad Ezri b Abdul Wahab
President
Malaysian Bar
1 December 2025
1 “Lawyers for Liberty questions MACC's notice to summon Albert Tei's lawyer for interrogation”, The Star, 30 November 2025.
2 “Press Release | The Importance of Protecting Legal Professional Privilege and the Right to Representation”, Malaysian Bar website, 11 June 2024.
3 [2018] 2 MLJ 669.
4 “Circular No 096/2018 | Update | Application for Declaratory Relief with regard to Legal Professional Privilege: Malaysian Bar v Director General of Inland Revenue (6 Apr 2018)”, Malaysian Bar website, 6 April 2018.
5 “Circular No 250/2019 | Update | Application for Declaratory Relief with Regard to Legal Professional Privilege: Malaysian Bar v Director General of Inland Revenue (19 Nov 2019)”, Malaysian Bar website, 19 November 2019.
6 “Circular No 156/2021 | Update | Legal Professional Privilege: Director General of Inland Revenue v Malaysian Bar”, Malaysian Bar website, 6 May 2021.
7 “Circular No 073/2023 | Update (13 Mar 2023) | Legal Professional Privilege: Director General of Inland Revenue v Malaysian Bar”, Malaysian Bar website, 13 March 2023.
8 “Circular No 145/2024 | Notices to Produce Documents and Records (Issued by the Tax Authorities)”, Malaysian Bar website, 17 May 2024.
9 “Circular No 209/2024 | Investigations Conducted by Enforcement Agencies and Legal Professional Privilege”, Malaysian Bar website, 17 July 2024.
10 “Circular No 253/2024 | Webinar on Dawn Raid | Practical Aspects on How Law Firms Can Manage Dawn Raids”, Malaysian Bar website, 21 August 2024.
SOURCE:- Malaysian Bar Websites
In a statement today, Malaysian Bar president Ezri Abdul Wahab described the actions of the anti-graft commission as “deeply troubling”, as they indicate a violation of rights that are essential to the administration of justice.
While not naming any parties, the statement is believed to be referring to Mahajoth Singh, the lawyer representing controversial businessperson Albert Tei.
Mahajoth said in a statement this morning that he would be at the MACC headquarters in Putrajaya at 10am today, after receiving a summons to have his statement taken as per Section 30(1)(a) of the MACC Act 2009 yesterday.
The authorities, he added, had also issued another notice under Section 30(1)(b) of the Act seeking certain documents and handphones allegedly belonging to his client, which he said he does not possess.
“The Malaysian Bar condemns in the strongest terms the recent actions of the MACC, which are in direct violation of Section 46 of the MACC Act 2009,” he said.
The aforementioned statute underlined that lawyers may be asked to provide information for investigations, but any privileged communications with clients remain strictly protected.
According to Ezri, this privilege cannot be superseded simply because an investigation is in progress.
“In light of the clear statutory protections under Section 46 of the MACC Act and the unequivocal stance of the courts, privileged documents and communications must remain beyond the reach of enforcement agencies, including the MACC, unless expressly authorised by the client or pursuant to a specific order from the High Court.
“Privilege cannot be treated as overridden merely because an investigation is underway. Any attempt to circumvent these protections is inconsistent with the clear intent of Parliament, and undermines the rule of law,” Ezri added.
The Bar president noted that this is not the first time the council has taken a stand on the matter, adding that over the past decade, it has consistently emphasised the importance of protecting privileged material through its official circulars.
He reiterated that the Malaysian Bar is prepared to support or take appropriate legal action to preserve the rule of law, protect the integrity of legal representation, and defend the fundamental right to confidential legal counsel.
‘Lawyer has evidence’
The MACC came under scrutiny for allegedly attempting to intimidate Mahajoth by summoning him for questioning on the grounds that he held evidence relevant to the investigation into his client.
The commission claimed that the action is within its authority as stated in Section 30(1) of the MACC Act, which allows it to issue a notice requiring any person to attend and produce documents or recordings necessary to assist an investigation.
Lawyers for Liberty co-founder Eric Paulsen had also criticised the move today, saying that questioning Mahajoth amounts to unwarranted harassment and a violation of the fundamental principle of lawyer-client privilege.
Paulsen urged the anti-graft body to respect the indispensable role played by lawyers in upholding the rule of law and ensuring the right to legal representation as enshrined in Article 5 of the Federal Constitution. - Malaysiakini, 1/12/2025
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment