“The notice is valid and not subject to judicial review,” Justice Abu Samah Nordin said in allowing the appeal by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC).

Abu Samah, who delivered the unanimous decision of the five-man bench, said the MACC could not carry out investigations if its work was subject to a challenge by way of judicial review.

He said it could not have been the intention of parliament to prevent investigation agencies like the MACC to carry out their work.

The bench was led by Chief Judge of Malaya Ahmad Maarop. The others were Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak Richard Malanjum, and Federal Court judges Hasan Lah and Balia Yusof Wahi.

Abu Samah said Article 5 of the Federal Constitution stated that an arrested person shall be allowed to consult and be defended by a lawyer of his choice.

He said it was clear that right was only accorded to a suspect and not to a witness.

In the present case, he said the lawyers had only accompanied a witness to the MACC for the investigation.

It is unclear, at the moment, what is the impact of the ruling as lawyers usually accompany their clients who are called as witness to assist investigations conducted by law enforcement agencies.

One of the lawyers Latheefa Koya said the ruling appeared to have undermined the role of counsel to their clients, including accompanying them when questioned by the investigation officer.

” I will have to read the full written judgment to see the effect on lawyers as a whole,” she told reporters.

On Nov 17, 2014.the Court of Appeal affirmed the findings of the High Court that quashed the MACC notice to lawyers Latheefa and Murnie Hidayah Anuar in connection with NFC investigations.

The MACC issued the notice on March 19, 2012, to compel both to be present at its headquarters in Putrajaya to assist in investigations involving NFC executive chairman Mohamad Salleh Ismail.

Failure to abide by the notice is an offence under Section 48(c) of the MACC Act 2009 and carries a maximum RM10,000 fine or two years’ jail or both, upon conviction.

Latheefa and Murnie Hidayah claimed they were served the notice on March 19, 2012, after accompanying their client, former NFC consultant Shamsubahrin Ismail to the MACC office to give his statement regarding Mohamad Salleh’s case.

They contended that the notice was void and contravened the provisions under Article 5(2) of the Federal Constitution.

Justice Zaleha Yusof had ruled, in the High Court, that the notice was invalid and an abuse of power.

She also ruled that MACC officers did not have the authority to record statements from lawyers who accompanied their clients.