By Daniel John Jambun
President
Borneo’s Plight in Malaysia Foundation (BOPIMAFO)
KOTA KINABALU : – We refer to the comments made by Datuk William Majinbon and Isaiah Majinbon in response to our call for comprehensive reforms to the Native Court system in Sabah, as reported in Warta Online on 15 May. While we welcome healthy public discourse, we cannot allow factually flawed and politically defensive narratives to mislead the public or derail urgent reform.
Their recent statements reflect more of a desire to polish the image of a failing system than to confront the truth: that Sabah’s Native Court remains marginalised, structurally weak, and politically manipulated.
Let us be precise and unapologetic in addressing their flawed arguments:
1. No Religious Discrimination — It’s the Law
The claim that our proposal discriminates on religious grounds is legally inaccurate and intellectually dishonest.
Section 9 of the Native Courts Enactment 1992 clearly states that the Native Court has no jurisdiction over matters governed by the Syariah Court. Any native customs that contradict Islamic law are excluded from Native Court proceedings.
This means Muslim natives are legally bound by Syariah law, and their first and primary recourse is the Syariah Court—not the Native Court.
Therefore, it is both logical and lawful to propose that the administration of the Native Court and Native Affairs be led by non-Muslim natives, who continue to rely on customary law as their source of justice, culture, and identity.
2. Endorsed by Legal Authority: Tun Richard Malanjum’s View
This position is not radical—it is supported by Tun Richard Malanjum, former Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak and Chief Justice of Malaysia. He publicly stated that native institutions in Sabah should be led by non-Muslim natives, as they make up the majority of indigenous peoples who still live by and depend on customary law.
This is not exclusion. It is about jurisdictional clarity, cultural representation, and legal consistency.
3. Talk of Meritocracy is Hypocrisy
Talk of “merit-based appointments” rings hollow when political patronage is the norm. For decades, appointments to the Native Court and the Department of Native Affairs have been dictated more by political allegiance than by legal acumen or cultural knowledge.
Case in point: A Native Chief with past criminal convictions was recently appointed and later removed. Where was the merit then?
Those defending the system today are defending a system that has consistently sidelined adat-literate and respected community leaders in favour of political loyalists.
4. Digital Records Are Not Reform — They’re Basic Housekeeping
Boasting about digitising court records as a sign of “reform” is a weak deflection. Digitalisation is a minimum standard in any modern administrative system—it is not structural reform.
If real reform was underway, we would already see:
A new and empowered Native Court Enactment,
Constitutional recognition of the Native Court,
Increased budget allocations,
Independent oversight mechanisms, and
Administrative autonomy.
None of these exist today.
5. Sabah Should Emulate Sarawak’s Native Court System
Sarawak has made considerable strides in elevating its Native Court. It is recognised under the Sarawak Constitution, has dedicated judicial training, clearer jurisdictional standing, and institutional pride.
Sabah must learn from this. Our Native Court must not remain a ceremonial footnote. We should emulate Sarawak’s model—a structurally independent, culturally representative, and constitutionally recognised Native Court.
This is the benchmark we must aspire to—not the watered-down version currently tolerated in Sabah.
6. The Native Court’s Role Has Evolved — Let’s Be Honest
Historically, the Native Court in Sabah included jurisdiction over all natives. But since Islam was made the state religion in 1973, and with the subsequent rise of the Syariah legal system, Muslim natives have been legally and structurally aligned with Syariah Courts.
Today, the Native Court primarily serves non-Muslim indigenous peoples. Any attempt to deny this reality is disingenuous and undermines effective reform.
7. Muslim Knowledge of Adat Is Not the Issue
We do not question the knowledge of adat held by Muslim natives. But the issue is not knowledge—it is legal applicability.
As long as Syariah law is the governing framework for Muslims, it is only fair, as Tun Malanjum argued, that native institutions be led by non-Muslim natives, who are the primary users and custodians of native customary law.
8. Is the Current System Working?
We urge Datuk William and Isaiah Majinbon to reflect:
Are they truly proud of the current state of the Native Court?
Are they satisfied with a system viewed by many as a “kampung court” with no real authority, no budgetary dignity, and no professional development?
Or do they admit—like most Sabahans—that it has become a political convenience, stripped of its rightful status as a legitimate pillar of justice?
We Stand Firm — Reform Is Not Optional
Sabah’s indigenous peoples deserve better. We reiterate:
The Native Court must be constitutionally recognised, structurally independent, and culturally representative.
Leadership in native institutions must be based on jurisdictional relevance, not tokenistic “balance.”
Reforms must be substantive, not cosmetic.
We don’t need more excuses. We need transformation. Let us be bold, honest, and just—for the sake of our people, our traditions, and our future.
Editor: The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of talantang.com.
