Not Intimidation Albert S Lawyer Called In As He Has Evidence Macc

---

 


MACC has refuted the allegation that it was trying to intimidate Albert Tei’s lawyer, Mahajoth Singh, by summoning the counsel for questioning today.
Instead, the agency claimed the lawyer was called in because he possessed evidence relevant to their investigation against his client.
MACC, in a statement, also stressed it has authority under Section 30(1) of the MACC Act to issue a notice and require any person to attend and produce documents or recordings necessary to assist an investigation.
“The notice was issued under Section 30(1) of the MACC Act 2009, which empowered MACC to require any person to attend and produce documents or recordings necessary to assist an investigation.
“There is no exemption for legal practitioners, and to suggest otherwise is legally unfounded.
“Given that the counsel representing the suspect is in possession of exhibits relevant to the investigation, he is legally obligated to produce them when required under Section 30 (3),” the statement read.
MACC was responding to a statement issued by Lawyers for Liberty (LFL) this morning, condemning the agency for summoning Mahajoth (above) for questioning.
LFL director Zaid Malek regarded the notice as an “extraordinary and unlawful” action by the agency “that raises serious questions about investigative propriety and respect for the rule of law”.
Routine statutory process
Adding further, MACC claimed that while the solicitor-client privilege protects confidential legal advice, it “does not excuse a lawyer from appearing before investigators, shield materials unrelated to legal advice, or prevent inquiries where the lawyer is a material witness”.
MACC headquarters in Putrajaya“Thus, the allegation of intimidation is baseless. The notice is a routine statutory process and in no way interferes with the lawyer’s ability to represent his client.
“Summoning individuals with relevant information is standard investigative procedure,” MACC said.
On LFL’s criticism against the agency for not allowing Mahajoth access to his client yesterday, MACC said such a temporary restriction is governed by the Criminal Procedure Code and operational requirements to protect investigative integrity.
Such a restriction is lawful and not unusual in sensitive cases, it added.
“Mischaracterising lawful procedures as ‘lawlessness’ is irresponsible and risks confusing the public,” MACC said. - Mkini

---