MACC probes not subjected to judicial review, lawyer says
(Bernama) – A criminal investigative process carried out by Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) officers cannot be challenged in court by way of a judicial review, the Federal Court here heard today.
Senior Federal Counsel Suzana Atan argued that Section 31 (a) of the MACC Act allowed the investigating officer to summon any person who the officer was of the opinion might assist in the investigation of an offence under the MACC Act.
She said the officer could summon any person and they might not necessarily be suspects or witnesses.
Suzana was appearing for the MACC in its appeal to restore its notice issued to two lawyers, Latheefa Beebi Koya and Murnie Hidayah Anuar, requiring them to be present at the MACC headquarters in Putrajaya to assist in investigations involving National Feedlot Centre (NFC) executive chairman Mohamad Salleh Ismail.
She contended that the officer acted in good faith in issuing the notice that was carried out in accordance with the statutory provision.
She said MACC officers conducting investigations were protected from any legal action in court under Section 72 of the MACC Act.
Counsel M Puravelan, however, argued the investigation process could be subjected to judicial review.
He said it was at the discretion of the investigating officer to summon any person and such exercise of discretion could be scrutinised by the court.
Puravelan said in this case, there was a concurrent finding of fact in that the notice was issued to the two lawyers in bad faith, adding that it was the duty of the court to interfere in the exercise of the discretion.
A five-member bench led by Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak Richard Malanjum who headed the appeal, deferred decision to a date to be fixed.
MACC issued the notice under Section 30 (1)(a) of the MACC Act to the two lawyers on March 23, 2012, prompting them to file a judicial review to quash the notice.
They succeeded to get the notice dated March 19, 2012 quashed when the High Court allowed their judicial review on January 30, 2013 and cancelled the notice.
The Court of Appeal, on November 17, last year, dismissed the appeal brought by the appellants — the MACC, government and MACC Assistant Superintendent Suziana Ali as respondents.
They obtained leave of the Federal Court on April 6 this year to proceed with their appeal to the Apex Court for the court to determine one legal question.
That question is, whether a criminal investigative process such as a notice of investigation issued under Section 30 (1)(a) of the MACC Act is amenable to judicial review.
