By Daniel John Jambun, President
Borneo’s Plight in Malaysia Foundation (BoPiMaFo)
KOTA KINABALU: I refer to the recent statement by the Chief Minister of Sabah, Datuk Seri Hajiji Noor, concerning the so-called “reform” of the Native Court. Let us be unequivocal and candid with the people of Sabah, particularly the KadazanDusun and Murut (Momogun) communities: Gabungan Rakyat Sabah (GRS) has governed this state for five years.
What substantive legislative or institutional reform has been enacted to uplift or professionalise the Native Court or the Department of Native Affairs during this tenure? The answer, regrettably, is none.
By contrast, under the Warisan-led administration helmed by Datuk Seri Shafie Apdal, foundational efforts to structurally reform the Native Court were initiated.
These efforts were grounded in the recognition that the Native Court is not a ceremonial relic, but a legitimate judicial institution central to the cultural sovereignty and legal identity of non-Muslim natives in Sabah. Tragically, these reforms were truncated following the change in government in 2020.
It is time we confront an uncomfortable constitutional incongruity: Native Affairs — a domain primarily concerning the customs (adat) and legal traditions of the KDM peoples — is presently administered and overseen by Muslim officials, many of whom possess limited, if any, knowledge of Momogun (Indigenous) adat.
This is in stark contrast to the Syariah legal framework, where the administration of Muslim personal and religious law is fully vested in the Syariah Courts and Jabatan Kehakiman Syariah Malaysia, led by qualified Muslim professionals. Why then should non-Muslim natives be denied the same constitutional and institutional autonomy over their own customary systems?
This disparity is not only unconstitutional — it is structurally discriminatory. The Federal Constitution, particularly Article 153, recognises the special position of the natives of Sabah and Sarawak.
However, such recognition must be reflected in institutional equality, especially in the legal domain. Moreover, the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63), which formed the foundation of Malaysia’s federal pact, was never meant to relegate the adat systems of Sabah’s indigenous peoples to a subordinate role.
Sarawak provides a compelling precedent. There, the Majlis Adat Istiadat Negeri Sarawak, led by non-Muslim Dayak professionals, functions independently from Syariah or civil court interference — honouring the principle of legal pluralism as enshrined in MA63. This is the model Sabah must emulate, not ignore.
Additionally, the status quo places Malaysia in breach of its international obligations under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), which affirms the right of indigenous peoples to maintain and develop their distinct political, legal, economic, and cultural institutions.
The continued subjugation of Sabah’s Native Court is a direct violation of this principle.
While the Syariah Courts receive generous annual allocations and sustained institutional development, the Native Court languishes with negligible budgets, outdated reference materials, and politically appointed Native Chiefs lacking formal training. This is not equality — this is institutional neglect.
Worse still, this regression stands in stark contrast to Sabah’s own pre-Malaysia legal history. During the era of the British Crown Colony of North Borneo, the Native Court was a respected and autonomous system of justice, administered by community elders and chiefs well-versed in customary law. Its marginalisation since 1963 is not only unjustified — it is a betrayal of Sabah’s legal heritage.
Accordingly, we call upon the Sabah Government to discharge its constitutional and moral duty to the Momogun (Indigenous) communities by instituting the following legal and institutional reforms:
Legally amend and restructure the Majlis Hal Ehwal Anak Negeri Sabah and the Jabatan Hal Ehwal Anak Negeri Sabah to become the Majlis Adat Istiadat Negeri Sabah and Jabatan Adat Istiadat Negeri Sabah respectively — in line with their actual mandate to safeguard non-Muslim native customs and traditions.
Guarantee that leadership appointments to these institutions are made from among qualified non-Muslim native professionals with demonstrated expertise in Momogun (Indigenous) adat and jurisprudence — not political appointees or religiously disconnected proxies.
Elevate these bodies under the administrative purview of the Chief Minister’s Department, consistent with the institutional parity accorded to the Syariah Court and Jabatan Kehakiman Syariah — ensuring budgetary priority, legal recognition, and operational autonomy.
Reconstitute the Native Court as a co-equal pillar within Sabah’s tripartite judicial structure — standing in parallel and with equal authority to the Civil and Syariah Courts, in accordance with Article 8 of the Federal Constitution and the intent of the Malaysia Agreement 1963.
Establish an Independent Native Court Reform Commission or Royal Commission of Inquiry, composed of jurists, indigenous legal scholars, and cultural experts, to conduct a comprehensive review and propose binding legal reforms to revitalise and professionalise the Native Court system.
Let it be clearly understood: The Momogun (Indigenous} community is not requesting privileges or preferential treatment. We are asserting our right to legal and institutional equality — a right long overdue, and grounded in constitutional guarantees, the rule of law, and respect for indigenous identity.
This is not a partisan issue — it is a matter of historical justice, legal parity, and human dignity. The Momogun {Indigenous) communities have waited far too long for equality within Sabah’s judicial and administrative structures. The Federal and Sabah governments must now decide: will they uphold the constitutional promises made to the indigenous peoples, or will they continue to delay, deflect, and deny us our rightful place in this Federation?
To delay these reforms any further would be to perpetuate systemic discrimination, erode the legitimacy of adat, and violate the spirit of Malaysia’s founding federal covenant.
