JUDGMENT

Ahmad Kamal Md Shahid J:

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 Special Rig