MACC chief commissioner Azam Baki said the allegation was unfounded as Mahajoth Singh, the lawyer representing businessman Albert Tei, was summoned under Sections 30(1) and 30(2) of the same Act.

He said the law clearly empowers MACC to order any individual to appear and produce the documents necessary for investigations.

“The law does not provide exemptions for lawyers or any other profession. Section 46, which protects lawyer-client communications, has not been disregarded.

“MACC did not request information related to confidential legal advice between lawyer and client.

“All that was requested was evidence and information in the possession of individuals who have important knowledge for the investigation,” he told a press conference at the MACC headquarters.

The Bar had criticised the anti-graft agency for summoning Mahajoth, saying the move breached legal professional privilege and threatened the rule of law.

Bar president Ezri Abdul Wahab argued that Section 46 of the MACC Act prohibits enforcement agencies from compelling lawyer-client communications without a High Court order.

Azam however said that legal privilege does not exempt a person from the obligation to appear when summoned by the authorities, and does not protect documents or materials that are not part of legal advice.

“MACC acted according to proper procedures. The lawyer was asked to attend just like any other witness.

“This is not a prosecution and does not affect the lawyer’s standing or role with any party,” he added, noting that a separate investigation involving Mahajoth would continue next week.