The Malaysian Bar views with serious concern the findings of the Public Accounts Committee (“PAC”) concerning the management of court bail payments through the e-Jamin system, as set out in its report tabled in the Dewan Rakyat (House of Representatives) on 5 October 2026 (“PAC report”).
e-Jamin is a digital platform for depositing court bail money, operated by Dapat Vista (M) Sdn Bhd1 and administered through the Office of the Chief Registrar (“CR”) of the Federal Court. It allows accused persons and their sureties to make bail payments beyond banking hours.2
On 13 May 2024, the Malaysian Bar was informed by the then-CR that e-Jamin would be discontinued from 19 May 2024, and bail payments would revert to the manual process.3 The Bar Council disagreed with this decision and raised concerns, due to the risk of prolonged, avoidable and unnecessary detention of accused persons from the B40 group during the transition.4 At that time, the Bar was not aware of the absence of contract documentation (or the specifics of the commercial arrangement) between the Government and the e-Jamin service provider and has been surprised by PAC’s revelations.
The PAC report records that the initial view of the Attorney General’s Chambers (“AGC”) on 20 December 2019 was that e-Jamin involved a commercial transaction, with the courts merely acting as users, and that no agreement was necessary.5 However, the Ministry of Finance (“MOF”)’s subsequent no-objection letter dated 26 December 2019 expressly required an agreement with the provider to protect the Government’s interests.6
The PAC report further records that at a meeting on 7 May 2024, MOF recognised that the implementation of e-Jamin was irregular from a procurement and financial perspective, and that the absence of a contract posed substantial risks to the Government.7
In these circumstances, the report’s finding that the absence of a formal contract arose from the AGC’s advice that no agreement was necessary is shocking. It is unclear why that view was taken, and why this state of affairs remained unchanged for so many years, notwithstanding MOF’s requirement for an agreement.
The Bar takes the position that when it comes to the delivery of services to the public, the Government must always insist on a written contract with all its service providers that sets out clear terms and minimum service standards under appropriate Service-Level Agreements (“SLAs”).8
This is to ensure that service providers can be held accountable and that the public (here, largely the families who put up the bail money) are protected by the Government, acting in the best interests of the public.
The priority should always be for the Government to act in a manner that safeguards and properly accounts for bail monies, avoids delays in refunds of bail monies, and protects and preserves the administration of criminal justice and the rights and liberties of accused persons.
On the AGC’s subsequent advice dated 12 March 2024, the PAC report states:
AGC menetapkan secara muktamad bahawa wang jaminan yang dibayar oleh penjamin ialah “wang awam” di bawah Seksyen 3 Akta 61 [Akta Tatacara Kewangan 1957] yang diperoleh melalui Kanun Tatacara Jenayah [Akta 593]. Sehubungan dengan itu, AGC memutuskan bahawa pengoperasian e-Jamin tidak mematuhi Perkara 97(1) Perlembagaan Persekutuan dan Seksyen 7 Akta 61 kerana dana tersebut tidak dimasukkan ke dalam Akaun Amanah Disatukan di bawah Kumpulan Wang Disatukan Persekutuan.9
The PAC’s revelations have gone beyond mere financial matters and have exposed serious gaps in governance in the delivery of public services, and have raised important questions about the handling and use of bail monies paid by sureties of accused persons.
It was reported on 8 October 2026 that Dapat Vista (M) Sdn Bhd, for its part, acknowledged10 PAC’s findings and recommendations, stating that it had cooperated and has been willing to enter into and complete a formal agreement. It also stated that e-Jamin was developed and operates under a public-private partnership model, with engagements beginning in 2019 with several government agencies on the proposed operating model, financial arrangements, security requirements and contractual terms. MOF had previously issued a letter on 26 December 2019 expressing no objection to the implementation, subject to conditions that included an agreement. In law, an agreement need not take the form of a single formal written contract, and may, in practice, arise from an exchange of correspondence and/or from the conduct of the parties.
The Malaysian Bar is neither the owner nor the operator of e-Jamin. The Bar’s engagement on e-Jamin has focused on access to bail and the protection of accused persons’ rights. The Bar has no powers to compel witnesses to give it evidence, no powers to investigate and so on, unlike the PAC, which is a Parliamentary Select Committee. Therefore, the Bar has access only to the PAC report and such limited facts as may be available in the public domain. The role of the Bar should not be misunderstood nor politicised in a manner that might divert attention away from the state actors and real issues identified by PAC. We urge politicians to refrain from using social media to drag the Malaysian Bar into the arena of party politics and instead redirect their efforts towards those responsible.
The Malaysian Bar hopes that Members of Parliament (“MPs”) would raise these issues in Parliament, particularly by posing questions to the Government during Question Time. These questions should be directed to MOF, the Prime Minister, and the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department (Law and Institutional Reform) to uncover any facts not already reported on by PAC.
Malaysia is counting on the PAC and MPs to strive to ensure that there should never be any gaps in governance and that public services are always delivered to the highest standards of service quality, and the public is always protected under appropriately drafted SLAs.
Anand Raj
President
Malaysian Bar
13 October 2026
1 Penyata Jawatankuasa Kira-Kira Wang Negara (PAC) DR. 28 Tahun 2026 (Pengurusan Perkhidmatan Bayaran Wang Jaminan Mahkamah Melalui Sistem E-Jamin di Bawah Pejabat Ketua Pendaftar Mahkamah Persekutuan), 5 October 2026, PDF p 32: Dapat Vista (M) Sdn Bhd is an indirect subsidiary of Pertama Digital Berhad; “Pertama Digital ran eJamin for five years without formal contract, invested bail funds without approval — PAC”, The Edge Malaysia, 5 October 2026.
2 PAC report, supra note 1, PDF pp 16–17, describing the platform, its launch and difficulties under the conventional bail process.
3 “Circular No 143/2024 | Update on Bail Management in Courts in Malaysia”, Malaysian Bar website, 15 May 2024.
4 “Circular No 144/2024 | Update on Bail Management in Courts in Malaysia and Invitation to Submit Feedback”, Malaysian Bar website, 17 May 2024.
5 PAC report, supra note 1, p 43, section 6.1.4, “Pengoperasian Tanpa Kontrak Rasmi”.
6 PAC report, supra note 1, PDF p 319, testimony recording the conditions in MOF’s letter dated 26 December 2019, including the requirement that the Office of the CR sign an agreement with the provider to protect the Government’s interests.
7 PAC report, supra note 1, p 35, setting out the chronology of the MOF meeting on 7 May 2024 and the subsequent letter dated 17 May 2024 directing that e-Jamin continue temporarily.
8 “Bar Council, TI-M urge audit and accountability in e-Jamin fallout”, News Straits Times, 10 October 2026.
9 PAC report, supra note 1, p 49, recording the AGC’s advice dated 12 March 2024.
10 “Dapat Vista responds to PAC findings on eJamin management”, The Star, 8 October 2026.