How Do Sabahans Seek Justice?

Systemic Barriers Faced by Ordinary Citizens

As a Sabah B40 citizen receiving RM100 monthly SARA aid, I often ask myself: How exactly are ordinary Sabahans supposed to seek justice when the very institutions meant to protect us create one obstacle after another?

Over the past few years, I have documented several patterns on this blog. They are not isolated incidents. They form a picture of systemic barriers that make access to justice feel almost impossible for people like me.

Here are some of the realities many Sabahans face:

Statutory bodies that do not respond to emails.

Government departments and statutory bodies frequently ignore polite, repeated emails and letters. Even when you follow up, you receive silence. (See my recent post: Even When You Work From the Office, We Get No Replies — So What Happens When You Work From Home, YB Masidi?) LINK

Police pass complaints involving criminal offences to KPKT, which has no enforcement powers.

When a complaint clearly involves a criminal offence, one would expect the police to investigate. Instead, such complaints are simply forwarded to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (KPKT). KPKT may handle certain administrative or housing-related matters, but it lacks the enforcement powers or mandate to deal with criminal elements. The complaint effectively disappears into a black hole. LINK

The Advocates & Solicitors Disciplinary Board (ASDB) throws out complaints using members who never attended the hearings.

In 2021 I lodged a complaint with the Advocates Inquiry Committee (now known as the ASDB) in Kota Kinabalu. The Committee produced two different signature pages for its findings. One reflected only the members who actually attended and heard the evidence. The other included signatures of absent members who never participated. The Committee openly acknowledged this as their “standard procedure.” This practice raises serious questions of natural justice. How can people who never heard the testimony or submissions form part of the decision-making majority? LINK

I raised this exact issue with the Malaysian Bar Council in early April 2026, carefully noting that they have no jurisdiction over Sabah and asking only for general expert views on procedural fairness and access to justice. Their reply was a standard template that completely ignored the substance of my question and simply told me to “engage a lawyer.” (Full emails reproduced in my earlier post.) LINK

Important meetings — even those involving the Attorney-General and State Secretary — are indefinitely postponed.

When high-level meetings that could resolve long-standing grievances are repeatedly delayed or cancelled without explanation, public confidence collapses. Citizens are left waiting indefinitely while the issues that affect their lives remain unresolved. LINK

 

Additional barriers I have highlighted

The RM100 filing fee plus printing costs acts as a real deterrent for B40 Sabahans. When your entire monthly government aid is RM100, paying the same amount just to lodge a complaint feels prohibitive.

The lack of uniform rules and protections compared to Peninsular Malaysia. For example, while the Federal Court in Peninsular Malaysia has started limiting indefinite foreclosure claims (as seen in cases like Thameez Nisha Hasseem v Maybank), Sabah continues to apply the outdated Limitation Ordinance that allows charges to linger for up to 60 years even after the debt is fully repaid.

A clear illustration is my documented case with Sabah Development Bank (SDB): a loan fully settled in 2004, with no interest accruing for over 20 years, yet the bank still refuses to release the charge on the property. Instead of exercising fairness and discretion, they hide behind technicalities in the Limitation Ordinance. This forces citizens into the position where the only real path left is a costly lawsuit — exactly what should be the last resort, not the only resort.

Is this why Sabah is fighting for autonomy, so they can continue what they have been 'practicing' instead of following rules, fairness, and evolving national standards?

These are not abstract legal debates. They directly affect ordinary Sabahans trying to hold professionals, statutory bodies, and authorities accountable.

Why this matters — and what we can do.

I am not writing this to attack any individual or body. I am writing it for educational purposes so that other Sabahans — especially those in the B40 group — know they are not alone when they encounter these barriers.

The patterns are clear: unresponsive institutions, procedural shortcuts that breach natural justice, institutions that cling to outdated technicalities and 60-year limitation rules instead of delivering fairness, cost barriers that price out the poor, referrals that lead nowhere, and endless delays at the highest levels. This legal stagnation mirrors Sabah’s broader economic and developmental stagnation — outdated laws and resistance to reform keep ordinary Sabahans trapped.

If disciplinary bodies and statutory authorities will not reform themselves, the public must keep shining a light on these issues. Options that remain open to us include ministerial oversight, public advocacy through blogs and social media, and continuing to document these experiences so that pressure for systemic change grows.

Silence only allows unfair practices to continue.

I invite civil and constructive comments below. Have you faced similar obstacles when trying to seek justice in Sabah? What solutions would you suggest?

Let us discuss how we, as Sabahans, can push for greater accountability, fairness, and genuine access to justice.

Related posts:

When Complaints Become Too Costly for Ordinary Citizens LINK

Why Hasn’t the Legal Profession Act 1976 Been Extended to Sabah? LINK

Part 2: Sabah Development Bank – When Technicalities Replace Justice LINK

Part 3: When Justice Requires a Lawsuit

Sabah’s Stagnation – Can Progress Happen Without Embracing Change? LINK