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

 

A Sabahans’ Perspective on Autonomy, Accountability and Access to Justice

In my previous post, I wrote about how ordinary Sabahans — especially those in the B40 group — often find it too costly and discouraging to file complaints against lawyers under our local system. Many readers asked: “If the system feels stacked against ordinary people, why not just extend the Legal Profession Act 1976 (LPA) from Peninsular Malaysia to Sabah so we have one uniform set of rules?”

It’s a fair and important question. Let me explain what I’ve learned.

The Short Answer

The Legal Profession Act 1976 has never been extended to Sabah because Sabah negotiated and retained its own separate legal framework when we joined Malaysia in 1963 under the Malaysia Agreement (MA63). Our profession is still governed by the Advocates Ordinance (Sabah Cap. 2), administered locally by the Sabah Law Society (SLS).

This separation was not an accident — it was deliberate. It was meant to protect Sabah’s distinct legal traditions, including elements of native customary law, our court structures, and the ability to handle our own professional standards and discipline.

What the Sabah Law Society Has Actually Said

The SLS has consistently opposed any full extension of the LPA that would repeal or subordinate our Advocates Ordinance and place us under the direct oversight of the Peninsular Malaysian Bar Council in Kuala Lumpur. Their position has always been clear: “Let us handle our own affairs.”

At the same time, the SLS has long complained that the Legal Profession Qualifying Board (LPQB) — a body created under the LPA — sets qualification standards (like law degree recognition and the CLP exam) that affect who can join the Sabah Bar, yet Sabah had no representation on that board for decades.

In November 2025, the SLS welcomed proposed amendments to the LPA that finally give Sabah nominated representatives on the LPQB. Their president, Datuk Mohamed Nazim Maduarin, called it a “long-overdue correction” that restores fairness and accountability without merging the two professions or erasing our autonomy.

So, no — the SLS has not been asking for the full LPA to be extended to Sabah. They have been defending our separate system while pushing for a proper voice in the parts of the federal system that already affect us.

Autonomy Should Not Mean Less Accountability

Here’s where I believe many ordinary Sabahans (including myself) have a valid concern.MA63 was designed to protect distinct state rights, not to create a shield for unaccountable behaviour. When I filed my own complaint in 2021, I experienced procedural issues (inconsistent signature pages on the Inquiry Committee decision) and faced a RM100 processing fee plus other costs. These barriers make it feel like complaining is not really welcome for ordinary citizens.

The good news is that the rules already allow the Disciplinary Board to waive the RM100 fee “as it deems fit,” and no fee applies if the SLS itself initiates the complaint. A simple policy to waive fees for verified B40 complainants (with proof like SARA documents) would cost nothing extra and would greatly improve public trust.

Autonomy is valuable, but it must come with real transparency and access to justice. If “handling our own affairs” results in procedures that feel insider-friendly or too expensive for the public we serve, then we need to talk about reforms right here in Sabah — whether through clearer rules on natural justice, better reporting of complaint outcomes, or easier access for low-income Sabahans.

What Should Happen Next?

The SLS and Disciplinary Board could adopt a default fee-waiver policy for genuine B40 complaints. No new law needed — just clearer guidelines.

Continue strengthening local accountability under the Advocates Ordinance so that the autonomy we value actually serves the people of Sabah.

Keep pushing for meaningful representation (not token) wherever federal decisions touch our profession.

 

Sabahans deserve a legal profession that is both autonomous and accountable. Protecting our separate framework under MA63 should never come at the expense of ordinary citizens’ ability to seek redress when things go wrong.

If you have experienced similar barriers when trying to complain about professional conduct, or if you support making the complaints process more accessible for B40 Sabahans, please share this post and consider writing a short, polite letter to the SLS and the Disciplinary Board.

Let’s keep this conversation constructive. Autonomy is a right we fought for — using it wisely to build public confidence is our shared responsibility.

Thank you for reading.

Your feedback is always welcome.