Back
2025 MarsdenLR 792
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
MUHAMAD KHARUL RIZAL JASI & ORS – Appellant
Versus
TAN SRI DATO SRI HAJI AZAM BAKI & ORS – Respondent
[Judicial Review Application No: WA-25-402-12/2023]
Judicial review claims against MACC's actions are non-reviewable unless proven to be in bad faith; the Applicants failed to meet this burden.
Headnote:(A) Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 (Act 694) - Sections 30, 31, 33 - Judicial review - Applicants sought leave for judicial review against MACC's actions including wrongful arrest and travel ban - Court found that the claims were not amenable to judicial review as they pertained to a criminal investigation process and were deemed frivolous and vexatious. (Paras 12, 30, 40)
(B) Judicial Review - The court emphasized that the applicants must show prima facie that the application is not frivolous or vexatious, and that there is some substance in the grounds supporting the application. (Paras 5, 11, 19)
Facts of the case:
The Applicants alleged wrongful actions by MACC officers, including unlawful searches, seizures, and detention, claiming these actions were intended to intimidate them in relation to ongoing civil proceedings. (Paras 3.1-3.17)
Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the Applicants failed to prove that the MACC's actions were tainted with mala fide or bad faith, and thus their claims were not suitable for judicial review. (Paras 22, 40)
Issues: The main issues included whether the Applicants' claims were amenable to judicial review and whether they were frivolous and vexatious. (Paras 12, 30)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the actions of MACC in conducting investigations are generally non-reviewable unless proven to be in bad faith, and the Applicants did not meet this burden. (Paras 20, 22)
Result: Leave for judicial review refused.
JUDGMENT
Introduction
[1] This is an application for leave filed by the Applicants to commence a judicial review proceeding (Encl 1) under O 53 of the Rules of 2012 (ROC) seeking inter alia, the following:
1.1 That the Applicants be granted leave of this Honourable Court to file an application for:
(a) An order of certiorari to quash the decision and/or action of the Respondents representing the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) who issued and/or involved in issuing orders pursuant to ss 30, 31 and 33 of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 (Act 694) against the Applicants;
(b) An order of certiorari to quash the decision and/or action of the Respondents representing the MACC who had wrongfully arrested and detained the 1st Applicant;
(c) An order of certiorari to quash the decision and/or action of the 10th Respondent in imposing a wrongful travel ban against the 1st Applicant;
(d) An order of mandamus against MACC and the Respondents to return the items which had been wrongfully seized from the Applicants;
(e) An order of Mandamus against the 1st Respondent, 2nd Respondent and 9th Respondent to ensure that all MACC officer adhere to the purpose of the law and all the procedures and MACC's investigation process in a fair and just manner;
(f) An order of mandamus against the 11th Respondent and/or Immigration Department's officer concerned to produce all the relevant letters of meeting, instruments and records related to the wrongful travel ban which has been issued against the 1st Applicant and the basis of such decision and/or action to impose a wrongful travel ban against the 1st Applicant;
(g) An order of mandamus against the 11th Respondent to procedure all the names of the officers involved in the investigation against the Applicant in "Ops Viet Tin 01" and the instruction given to the officers involved in "Ops Viet Tin 01" with the grounds and/or basis of such instruction;
(h) A declaration that the investigation conducted under s 18 of Act 694 is of no basis, malicious and exceeded the jurisdiction of MACC and is against the law since the basis of the investigation is based on a proceeding which has been filed by the 2nd Applicant and handled by the 4th Applicant at the High Court which the outcome of the hearing is still pending;
(i) A declaration that any statement by the 1st and 2nd Applicant including the Statement under s 53 of Act 694 was obtained wrongfully by the MACC through its officer, exceeded the jurisdiction provided under the law and was conducted through coercion and/or threats and/or pressure and/or intimidation and/or under duress;
(j) A declaration that ss 30 and 31 of Act 694 do not give the right or power to MACC to waive the privilege of the 3rd Applicant and the 4th Applicant under Malaysian [aw which protects all the communication and information between solicitor and client whereby such privileges are referred to as rights to legal professional privilege, legal professional protection, solicitor-client privilege, solicitor- client protection, litigation privilege (hereinafter referred to as "Special Rights"); by requesting and claiming access to, or disclosure of solicitor- client's communication from any advocates and solicitors, except such privilege is waived by the client;
(k) A declaration that Special Rights under Malaysian law in general and as referred to in ss 126, 127, 128 and 129 of Evidence Act 1950 (Act 65) in specific required an advocate and solicitor to refuse any request or claim from officers of MACC to give access to, or disclosure of any communication by the client, except such Special Rights is waived by the client;
(l) A declaration that Special Rights under Malaysian law in general and as referred to in ss 126, 127, 128 and 129 of Evidence Act 1950 (Act 65)in specific, cannot be violated even though an order of a High Court Judge pursuant to s 46(1) of Act 694 has been obtained;
(m) A declaration that MACC has violated the Speci
