Senior federal counsel Shamsul Bolhassan, appearing for the AGC, submitted before High Court judge Alice Loke that MACC’s orders to examine Mahajoth and compel him to produce documents were exercises of power carried out in the course of a criminal investigation.

“Such exercises (of power) in the course of a criminal investigation are not amenable to judicial review,” he said in urging the court to dismiss the leave application with costs.

Mahajoth, represented by lawyer N Surendran, is seeking leave to commence judicial review proceedings to quash the two orders issued under Sections 30(1)(a) and 30(1)(b) of the MACC Act 2009.

In his submissions, Surendran argued that MACC had breached statutory protection for privileged communication between a solicitor and client under Section 126 of the Evidence Act 1950 and Section 46(2) of the MACC Act.

The orders, dated Nov 29 and Nov 30 last year, directed Mahajoth to produce information and documents belonging to his client, controversial businessman Albert Tei, in connection with an ongoing MACC investigation.

Surendran contended that the orders were invalid, improperly issued and unenforceable.

He submitted that the documents sought were provided solely for the purpose of giving legal advice and for representing his client, and therefore should not be subject to disclosure.

Loke fixed Jan 28 for a decision.