MacC’s Orders Not Reviewable: Court Tells High Court
The High Court was told that the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) has the authority to issue orders to interrogate a person and to compel the production of documents, and that such orders are not subject to judicial review in the case involving Albert Tei’s lawyer. Senior federal counsel Shamsul Bolhassan, representing the Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC), argued that these measures were exercises of regulatory power taken in the course of a criminal investigation.
Judge Alice Loke presided over the proceedings as part of a broader challenge to the validity or reviewability of MACC’s investigative powers. The court’s hearing focused on whether MACC’s orders to examine Mahajoth and to compel the production of particular documents could be scrutinized by the judiciary, or whether they should stand free from interference given the investigative context.
Arguments Presented by the AGC
Shamsul Bolhassan submitted that MACC’s directives were issued within the scope of its statutory duties in pursuing criminal investigations. He contended that such orders are routine tools for gathering evidence and are designed to facilitate the process of uncovering corruption without undermining the overall integrity of the investigation.
The AGC’s position emphasized deference to the investigative framework and suggested that allowing broad judicial oversight over every investigative directive could hinder MACC’s ability to collect timely and relevant information. The submission stressed that the orders under scrutiny were part of standard investigative procedures, not actions that would compromise justice or due process.
Defense and Court Considerations
While the exact arguments from Albert Tei’s legal team were not fully disclosed in the brief remarks, the court’s engagement indicated a careful balance between preserving the integrity of MACC’s investigative powers and ensuring that suspects and their representatives receive fair treatment under the law.
Judge Loke’s assessment will likely weigh the statutory framework governing MACC’s powers against concerns about potential overreach or abuse. The central question remains whether the challenged orders can be reviewed by the courts as part of the legal checks and balances that limit executive authority in criminal investigations.
Implications for the Case
The outcome of this point of law could have implications for how MACC’s investigative orders are treated in future cases, especially those involving high-profile subjects or sensitive corruption probes. If the court affirms that such orders are not reviewable in this context, it could limit immediate judicial intervention in similar investigative steps. Conversely, a decision recognizing review rights could provide a stronger recourse for defendants and their lawyers to challenge MACC directives early in investigations.
What Comes Next
The High Court’s ruling on the reviewability of MACC’s orders will shape subsequent steps in the Albert Tei matter and potentially influence how prosecutors present their evidence in ongoing corruption probes. The court has not yet announced a final decision, and observers will await a formal ruling clarifying the extent of judicial oversight over MACC’s investigative powers.
