Access to Justice Denied?

My Struggle to File a Complaint Against a Lawyer as a B40 SARA Recipient in Sabah

In Malaysia, we often hear that the legal profession is self-regulating and that disciplinary boards exist to protect the public from professional misconduct. But what happens when the very system meant to uphold standards places financial and procedural barriers that effectively silence ordinary citizens — especially those from the B40 group?

I am writing this from personal experience as a resident of Kota Kinabalu, Sabah. I am a B40 individual who has been unemployed since 2014. My only income comes from a modest RM1,000 monthly rental from a small apartment and RM500 contributed by one of my sons. I also receive RM100 monthly SARA aid to help buy basic necessities for my wife and me. For someone in my position, even RM100 is not a small sum.

The Complaint

On 25 November 2022, I received a Notice of Demand from Messrs Ronny Cham & Co. The letter stated that the firm was acting for Puan Rosemary Ahping and Puan Della E. Sinidol of Lembaga Pembangunan Perumahan dan Bandar (LPPB).

I wrote several emails directly to Puan Rosemary seeking confirmation whether she had indeed instructed the firm. I received no reply. I then telephoned and followed up with an email to Puan Christilla Korok, Head of the Legal Department at LPPB. She clearly informed me that Messrs Ronny Cham & Co is not on LPPB’s panel of lawyers.

This appeared to be a clear case of misrepresentation. Later, the same firm brought a counterclaim against me as the 2nd Defendant. The Particulars of Sub-sale they filed in court contain several discrepancies in purchaser names, dates, and prices compared to actual Sale and Purchase Agreements and information from the parties involved (as detailed in the annex I sent to the Chief Judge).

Importantly, the same lawyer is now acting for all four Defendants in the counterclaim. This raises a serious additional question: Are all four Defendants fully aware of the Particulars of Sub-sale that have been filed on their behalf? How is it possible that four separate individuals could independently provide — and agree to — the same inaccurate information regarding purchaser names, dates, and prices? These are not minor errors; they go to the heart of the court documents filed in their names.

I believe these matters — the initial misrepresentation about acting for LPPB and the apparent inaccuracies in the court filings — warrant investigation by the Sabah Advocates Disciplinary Board (SADB) in the interest of public confidence in the legal profession.

The Filing Fee Barrier

According to the Advocates (Disciplinary Proceedings) (Procedure) Rules 2018, the processing fee for lodging a complaint with the SADB is RM100. The rules explicitly allow the Board to waive the fee in whole or in part as it deems fit (Rule 14(4)).

Since March 2023, I have written multiple times to the SADB requesting a waiver due to my financial hardship. I have explained my B40 status, SARA recipient details, and long-term unemployment. The responses I received simply directed me to fill the form and pay the fee, with no decision on the waiver. My emails in September 2025 and April 2026 went unanswered on the waiver issue.

On 17 April 2026, I wrote a respectful letter to the Right Honourable Datuk Hajah Azizah binti Haji Nawawi, the Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak (who oversees the Disciplinary Board), seeking her kind intervention to instruct the Secretary to waive the fee. I sent a polite follow-up on 24.4.2026 with full details and attachments. As of now, there has been no response.

To lodge the complaint properly, I must also prepare four complete sets (quadruplicate) of a detailed statement, statutory declaration, and all supporting documents — incurring additional, printing, photocopying and administrative costs.

Why This Matters to the Public

This is not just about my RM100. This is about whether vulnerable members of the public — the very people most likely to need protection from potential professional misconduct — can actually access the disciplinary process.

If a low-income person cannot afford the fee (even a modest one), how can the Board claim to serve the public interest?

Should access to justice in regulatory complaints be means-tested in practice, even when the rules provide for waivers?

How many legitimate complaints are never filed because of these procedural hurdles?

 

When a lawyer acts for multiple parties and files what appear to be identical inaccurate particulars on their behalf, the public has a right to know whether the disciplinary system is accessible enough to examine such conduct. Justice should not come with a price tag that low-income Malaysians cannot afford.

A Call for Greater Accessibility

I hope by sharing this openly, more attention can be given to improving access to the disciplinary process in Sabah and Malaysia. Possible simple reforms could include:

·        Automatic or simplified waivers for verified B40/ SARA recipients

·        Clear published guidelines on how to apply for waivers and timelines for decisions

·        Greater use of digital submissions to reduce photocopying costs

·        Better communication and acknowledgment of hardship requests

 

The public has a right to know how these systems work in practice, not just in theory.

Note: This is my personal experience and account. I continue to pursue the matter through proper channels. This post is written in the spirit of transparency and public interest, not to prejudice any ongoing proceedings.

All statements here are based on my personal experience and documentary evidence, shared for public awareness.