PUTRAJAYA: The Federal Court will have the opportunity to deliberate whether a notice to investigate, issued by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC), is subject to a legal challenge.

This follows a leave to appeal application granted by a five-man apex court bench chaired by Tan Sri Raus Sharif yesterday.

The court allowed one question of law by the MACC, represented by Senior Federal Counsel Suzana Atan, as the anti-graft agency had fulfilled the requirement under Section 96 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964.

That provision states that the Federal Court would only proceed to hear a civil appeal, if an aggrieved party was able to show that the subject matter was raised for the first time and was of public importance.

On Nov 17 last year, the Court of Appeal affirmed a High Court decision revoking a notice issued by MACC to two lawyers in connection with investigations into the National Feedlot Corporation (NFCorp).

A three-man bench chaired by Datuk Linton Albert which dismissed the appeal by MACC, said there was no reason for the appellate court to disturb the findings of the High Court judge.

On Jan 31, 2013, High Court judge Datuk Zaleha Yusof allowed a judicial review application by lawyers Latheefa Koya and Murnie Hidayah Anuar, ruling that the notice issued (under Section 48(c) of the MACC Act) was illegal and an abuse of power.

The lawyers asked the court to quash a March 19, 2012 notice by the MACC, compelling them to give statements.

The two also sought a declaration that the notice was invalid and that the MACC officers had no authority to record statements from lawyers accompanying their clients.

Zaleha said evidence revealed that the lawyers did not interfere when the client was being interviewed by MACC officials.

She said it was an act of intimidation by MACC officers in an attempt to obtain privileged information between clients and lawyers.

Zaleha said it must be remembered that the independence of lawyers was a fundamental principle recognised internationally.

The two lawyers had contended that the notice which required them to be present at the MACC headquarters in Putrajaya on March 23, 2012, to assist in investigations involving NFCorp executive chairman Datuk Seri Dr Mohamad Salleh Ismail was void and against Article 5(2) of the Federal Constitution.

The two, who are representing former NFC consultant Datuk Shamsubahrin Ismail, claimed they were served the notice after accompanying their client to the MACC office to give his statement regarding Mohamad Salleh’s case.

Failure to abide by the notice is an offence under Section 48(c) of the MACC Act and punishable with a maximum RM10,000 fine or two years’ jail or both, upon conviction. — The Malaysian Insider

This article first appeared in The Edge Financial Daily, on April 7, 2015.