Report of the National Inquiry into the Land Rights of Indigenous Peoples 85 Fraud and use of Power of Attorney 6.19 Complaints of fraud were also linked to overlapping applications that resulted in many individuals and in some cases, an entire village losing their land. Right until the 1990’s, Powers of Attorney (PoA) were commonly used without stringent checks on the validity of such PoA. 6.20 In case no SD32 under the Sungai Koyah Smallholders Scheme in the Kinabatangan district, the use of PoA purportedly signed by all landowners, including people who had passed away, remains a serious issue. Mr Jamal @ Jamalludin bin Sinyor (W17) later found that their lands had been sold to Bagus Maju, a company which initially applied for the land but was rejected in favour of the smallholder scheme. “…the problem related to the scheme participants started in 1993 when Bagus Maju submitted an application for an area of 4,900 ha, which included the Sungai Koyah Smallholders Scheme” 6.21 In many cases of land abuse, questions arise as to the process of putting a check and balance on approval of land applications and particularly ground verification by the LSD. In case SD43, the Kadazan Labuk community from Kg Baba, Telupid in Beluran represented by village head Mr. Jitoh Abdul (W52) alleged that their previous village head, KK Salati Salupan committed fraud by replacing the land applications of the residents of Kg Baba with those of 33 outsiders. Once land titles were issued to KK Salati and the outsiders, the land was subsequently sold to a company and thereafter resold to IJM Meliau Estate, the current landowner. IJM Meliau Estate said that it had not violated any community rights and considered the Kg Baba community as illegally occupying company land. 6.22 In case KM33, Janlin Maidar (W44) contested on behalf of his community in Kg Samparita Laut, the sale of their NCR land by Mr Maipop Pangasip and 57 others to a company through a land broker named Mr Victor Lim. According to the Surveyor for the region (W51), the Pitas ACLR apparently confirmed to the survey office that there were no other applications apart from Mr Maipop Pangasip and 57 others and thus survey was carried out accordingly in 2009. He also added that no sale of land should occur until the land titles were issued and could only be done by landowners themselves. 6.23 In a number of cases, the Inquiry was told that land applied for by natives was assigned to the staff of the LSD, giving rise to allegations of nepotism or abuse of position. In case KG12 above, the Keningau ACLR W101 admitted that the three pieces of land that had been applied for by Mr Kimin’s wife were approved by three different staff of LSD. Notices and Follow-up 6.24 Another serious breach of indigenous peoples’ right to land that the Inquiry considered was in relation to the notices under section 13 of the SLO to summon claimants on any State land prior to the alienation of the said land. Such notices, if properly posted and the claims investigated in a proper manner taking into account indigenous peoples’ constraints to monitor applications by others for their land, could have avoided the loss of many NCR lands. 6.25 Mr Galus Ahtoi (W10) elaborated on issues faced as follows: “Section 13 is really problematic. But if implemented in a transparent manner, it is critical in protecting NCR because if we look at Schedule 3 of section 12, Part D (of the SLO), which is to be completed by the ACLR, it will ascertain whether the notice was issued. A simple Yes or No. If yes, were there any NCR claims received? Yes or No”. chapter 6_a4.indd 85 7/5/13 6:47 PM