KUALA LUMPUR, 3 December 2025 — The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) has rejected allegations by Malaysian Bar and the advocacy group Lawyers for Liberty (LFL) that it breached Section 46 of the Malaysian Anti‑Corruption Commission Act 2009 by summoning a lawyer involved in the investigation of businessman Albert Tei. The agency said the summons was in compliance with Section 30(1) of the Act and did not override legal-professional privilege.
The controversy centres on MACC’s issuance of a fresh notice to lawyer Mahajoth Singh, counsel for Mr. Tei, who is under investigation in connection with alleged bribery of former senior political aide Shamsul Iskandar Akin. The Malaysian Bar deemed the summons a “direct violation” of Section 46, which safeguards communications between lawyers and clients unless a High Court directs disclosure.
What Section 46 and the Legal Debate Involve
Section 46 of the MACC Act states that advocates and solicitors may be required to disclose information in investigations into corruption offences, but that such disclosure must not compel the revelation of privileged communications or documents that came to the lawyer’s knowledge for the purpose of pending proceedings.
The Malaysian Bar’s position is that MACC’s act of summoning counsel to answer questions risks undermining solicitor-client privilege and the right to legal representation. The Bar has argued that privileged communications remain off-limits unless the client waives them or a court orders their production.
MACC, however, has countered that the lawyer in question was called under Section 30(1) of the Act, which allows any individual with relevant documents or information to be required to produce them in an investigation. The agency insists the summons is lawful, does not prevent counsel from representing his client, and that the common-law privilege does not shield all materials held by a lawyer acting as a material witness.
Investor & Corporate-Governance Implications
- Rule-of-law and enforcement-risk signalling: For domestic and foreign investors, this dispute signals uncertainty over how enforcement agencies may exercise power and how strongly statutory protections for legal privilege are upheld. Companies should incorporate such governance-risk factors into their compliance frameworks.
- Legal-privilege compliance: Corporates and legal-advisory firms in Malaysia must reassess their document-management protocols, counsel-client communication policies and how far selective enforcement may affect them in investigations.
- Reputational and regulatory risk: Entities under investigation should prepare for heightened scrutiny of counsel and record-keeping; compliance with statutory notices should be carefully managed to avoid sanctions for obstruction.
- Broader enforcement environment: As MACC intensifies investigations into allegations of corruption and misuse of public funds, investors may face elevated legal-process risk in sectors prone to enforcement (e.g., property, government-linked entities, construction). Strengthening corporate governance, transparency and response-protocols becomes key.
What to Monitor
- Whether the High Court will be asked to adjudicate the scope of Section 46 in relation to privileged legal material held by lawyers acting in investigations.
- Further statements from MACC and the Malaysian Bar that clarify how the summons will be applied and whether new guidelines on lawyer-summons procedures will be issued.
- Impact on ongoing cases involving legal-counsel summonses, whether similar notices are issued and how courts react.
- Any revision of MACC’s internal practice, whether it issues clearer procedures regarding lawyer-summons notices, lawyer-client privilege and regulatory alignment.
- Investor sentiment: whether legal-governance risk in Malaysia will influence investor perceptions, especially in sectors exposed to government contract risks or enforcement engines.
