Syed Othman J:

The applicant is being charged in the Sessions Court at Johore Bahru with an offence under s. 4(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1961. He has instructed Mr. CKG Pillay, an advocate and solicitor in Johore as his solicitor but, according to his affidavit,

in view of the complexity of the case, he feels that full justice can only be done if Dato David Marshall is instructed by Mr. Pillay to act for him.

He applies for the ad hoc admission of Dato David Marshall to lead Mr. Pillay in defending him in that case.

Mr Pillay says in his affidavit that subject to the Court's approval he intends to instruct Dato David Marshall to lead in this case as he was of the view that

in the circumstances of this case he possesses the special experience to do full justice to the applicant and to serve the administration of justice, that from instructions which the applicant has given him he is of the view that the case involves important points of law on jurisdiction, procedural matters, interpretation of Statutes and Government regulations, especially relating to the Malaysian navy, as well as matters of division of responsibility between the officers at various levels of the naval organisation and the whole network of the financial control of the Malaysian navy.

I do not think that there can be any argument that Dato David Marshall is a well-known Counsel in this part of the world and until the introduction of s. 8A of the Advocates and Solicitors Ordinance, 1947 which came into force at the commencement of this year, was a prominent practitioner in the Federation, having been engaged to use the expression of Mr. Pillay in several causes celebrate in this country. However, by the new provisions only a citizen of Malaysia or a permanent resident in Malaysia can be admitted to practise. Dato

David Marshall, being a Singapore citizen and not a permanent resident here, is therefore debarred from practising here. The new provisions still allow a Judge to admit

other persons to be admitted for the purpose of a particular case if he had, in the opinion of the Court, special qualifications or experience of a nature not available amongst advocates and solicitors in Malaysia; and he has been instructed by an advocate and solicitor in Malaysia.

The Attorney General and the Bar Council are objecting to the application on the ground that there is nothing to show that Dato David Marshall has the special qualifications or experience mentioned in s. 8A (2) of the Ordinance.

Mr Pillay argues not only upon the matters set out in the affidavits but also on the right of the subject to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice as provided by cl (3) of Art. 5 of the Constitution.

I shall deal with the specific matters raised in the affidavits, most of which can be said to amount to nothing more than the opinion and belief of the applicant and Mr. Pillay.

The charge against the applicant as shown in the affidavit of the applicant relates to an offence alleged to have been committed at KD Malaya, Woodlands, in the Republic of Singapore.

It is obvious from the charge that the question whether or not the Sessions Court has jurisdiction to try an offence committed at KD Malaya, Woodlands, in the Republic of Singapore, should be raised as a preliminary point; but I do not think that the point is of such magnitude as to be beyond the reach of an advocate and solicitor in this country.

It is not shown what are the procedural matters and the interpretation of statutes which are within the special qualifications or experience of Dato David Marshall and not within the grasp of the ordinary practitioner in this country.

It is also said that the case involves Government regulations, especially relating to Malaysian navy as well as matters of division of responsibility between the officers at the various levels of the Naval organisation - in fact the whole network of the financial control and expenditure of the Mala