By Daniel John Jambun, Borneo’s Plight in Malaysia Foundation (BoPiMaFo)
Borneo’s Plight in Malaysia Foundation (BoPiMaFo) states in the clearest possible legal terms:
KOTA KINABALU: The Sebatik controversy cannot be treated as an ordinary land matter.
It is a matter of:
sovereignty
territorial integrity
constitutional responsibility
1. THIS IS NOT GOVERNED BY LAND LAW ALONE
The Sabah State Government cannot rely on the Sabah Land Ordinance to justify secrecy or unilateral handling.
That law governs:
land alienation
leases
administrative control of State land
It does NOT govern:
territorial boundaries
sovereignty
cession of land to a foreign state
To suggest otherwise is legally untenable.
2. TERRITORIAL ISSUES TRIGGER CONSTITUTIONAL OBLIGATIONS
Once an issue touches on:
boundary demarcation
recognition of foreign claims
potential transfer or loss of control
it moves beyond land administration and engages:
the Federal Constitution of Malaysia
the Sabah Constitution
principles of sovereignty under international law
Let this be clearly understood:
Territory is not an administrative asset.It is a constitutional trust.
3. POLICE REPORT BY YOUTH CHIEF — MISPLACED RESPONSE TO A SOVEREIGNTY QUESTION
BoPiMaFo notes that Azrul Ibrahim, Youth Chief of Parti Gagasan Rakyat Sabah, has lodged a police report over claims concerning Sebatik.
This development is deeply concerning.
At a time when the issue clearly raises:
sovereignty concerns
territorial integrity questions
constitutional implications
the response has been to criminalise public discourse instead of addressing it
Let this be stated firmly:
A sovereignty issue cannot be reduced to a police matter.
The priority must be:
public clarification
institutional accountability
legislative scrutiny
—not enforcement.
4. STATE ASSEMBLY OVERSIGHT IS NOT OPTIONAL — IT IS NECESSARY
BoPiMaFo asserts that:
Any matter involving possible territorial cession or boundary recognition MUST be brought before the Sabah State Legislative Assembly.
Because:
sovereignty belongs to the people
the Assembly represents the people
executive action alone is insufficient in matters of such gravity
Failure to table the issue amounts to:
bypassing democratic accountability
undermining constitutional governance
5. EXECUTIVE DISCRETION HAS LIMITS
While the State Authority may exercise powers under land laws:
those powers do not extend to altering or compromising territorial sovereignty without scrutiny.
Any attempt to:
treat a sovereignty issue as an administrative matter
shield it under “confidential negotiations”
is a misuse of executive discretion.
6. SILENCE IN SOVEREIGNTY MATTERS IS LEGALLY AND POLITICALLY DANGEROUS
The continued refusal to:
provide full disclosure
clarify the legal position
engage the Assembly
creates a serious constitutional risk:
decisions affecting Sabah’s territory may be made without the knowledge or consent of its people
This is unacceptable.
7. BOPIMAFO’S LEGAL POSITION
BoPiMaFo therefore states:
1. The Sebatik issue is a sovereignty matter, not merely a land issue
2. It cannot be lawfully or legitimately handled solely at the executive level
3. It must be tabled, explained, and debated in the Sabah State Legislative Assembly
4. Enforcement actions, including police reports, cannot substitute constitutional accountability
Anything less:
violates the spirit of constitutional governance
erodes public trust
raises serious legal questions about accountability
Let there be no confusion:
Land can be administered.But sovereignty must be defended.
If the government chooses:
secrecy over transparency
enforcement over explanation
avoidance of the Assembly
then the conclusion will be unavoidable:
that a matter of sovereignty is being handled without transparency
And that—
is a line that must never be crossed.
“Sabah’s territory is not negotiable in silence — and never through intimidation.”
