Lawyer Baru Bian, who is seeking a review of an NCR case, explained that where the Federal Court differed earlier this week was whether Adat had the force of law on pemakai menoa and pulau galau as NCR land.

“In fact, the Federal Court agreed the custom of pemakai menoa and pulau galau have been in existence since time immemorial,” said Baru in a statement reported by Borneo Post. “The ultimate question they considered was whether such Adat has the force of law.”

Baru, who is Ba’Kelalan Assemblyman and Sarawak opposition leader, was commenting on Deputy Chief Minister James Masing urging Mais to define NCR land. Masing attributed the adverse Federal Court ruling to Mais not defining NCR land.

The argument by the state government’s Counsel J C Fong, and the companies’ counsels who concurred with him, was that Adat had no force of law in Sarawak.

“The majority of judges agreed with that argument,” said Baru.

He said that he submitted in court all the definitions of pemakai menoa and pulau galau from experts like A J N Richards, the late Gerunsin Lambat, Prof Dimbab Ngidang, and Nicholas Bawin. “The definition of the two terms was never in dispute,” said Baru.

Earlier, he tabled a motion and a private member’s Bill on two occasions in the Sarawak Assembly to amend the definition of NCR under section 2 of the Sarawak Land Code to include pemakai menoa and pulau galau.

“Even my private Bill was thrown out because it came from the opposition,” he said. “Any Barisan Nasional (BN) Assemblyman could have taken it up and made it their Bill.”

He urged the Dayak to ask themselves why the state wanted to deprive them of their land.

“Now the state will claim that huge tracts of land are state land,” he said.

“Who stands to gain from this judgment?”

He pledged to make a final attempt to bring the matter for review at the Federal Court.

The Federal Court, in an apparent contradiction in terms, recognised that Adat has the force of law on “temuda”, cultivated land next to longhouses.