The anti-graft agency said Mahajoth Singh was in possession of exhibits relevant to its investigation into Tei and that he was legally obligated to produce them under the MACC Act.
“The notice was issued under Section 30(1) of the MACC Act, which empowers MACC to require any person to attend and produce documents or recordings necessary to assist in an investigation.
“There is no exemption for legal practitioners, and to suggest otherwise is legally unfounded. Refusal to do so may amount to obstructing a public officer from carrying out an investigation, which is an offence under the law,” it said in a statement today.
MACC dismissed LFL’s concerns that summoning Mahajoth would jeopardise his solicitor-client privilege with Tei. It said it does not excuse the lawyer from appearing before investigators or shielding materials not related to legal advice.
It said solicitor-client privilege does not prevent inquiries if the lawyer involved was a material witness in a probe.
“Thus, the allegation of intimidation is baseless. The notice is a routine statutory process and in no way interferes with the lawyer’s ability to represent his client.
“Summoning individuals with relevant information is standard investigative procedure. Mischaracterising lawful procedures as ‘lawlessness’ is irresponsible and risks confusing the public,” it said.
Yesterday, Tei and Shamsul Iskandar Akin, the former senior political secretary to Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, were remanded for six days to assist MACC in a corruption probe.
The duo were detained on Friday after Tei claimed he bribed Shamsul to recover funds that were allegedly distributed to Sabah assemblymen.
Tei, the controversial businessman at the centre of the alleged Sabah mining scandal, is facing trial on two counts of giving bribes in a separate case.
A woman named Sofia Rini Buyong, who is also being investigated by MACC in connection with Tei’s allegations, was arrested on Thursday night and is under remand until tomorrow.
Earlier today, LFL said Mahajoth was summoned for questioning by MACC, describing it as abnormal and potentially intruding upon confidential solicitor-client communications.