PUTRAJAYA'S appeal to overturn a High Court decision granting the Sabah Law Society (SLS) leave for a judicial review of the state’s 40% special grant will be heard on May 16 after an eight-month delay.
The appeal was initially scheduled for Sept 14 last year but it will now be heard, by a panel of three judges, in the middle of this month at the Kota Kinabalu Court Complex.
Senior Sabah lawyer, Datuk Roger Chin, said the matter was already stalled for one-and-a-half years since SLS was granted leave by the High Court on November 11, 2022.
“The hearing was held as the attorney-general is challenging the High Court decision in granting SLS the right to pursue judicial review against both Sabah and Federal governments.
“While the attorney-general is contesting SLS's legal standing, SLS firmly maintains its right to seek justice on behalf of the people of Sabah,” he said in Kota Kinabalu.
It is learnt that Sabah has decided not to challenge the High Court decision although it is also named as defendants in the case.
The Sabah government has publicly declared its support to the SLS initiative.
The case has a huge significance to Sabah because Putrajaya did not fulfil Sabah’s 40% revenue entitlement as mandated in the Federal Constitution.
Sabah was to have received a special grant deriving from the revenue collected by the Federal Government from the state to accelerate its developments.
Article 112C and Article 112D of the Federal Constitution, alongside Section 2 of Part IV of the Tenth Schedule provides that Sabah was entitled to two-fifths of the net revenue collected by the Federal Government from Sabah, while the latter provides for a review of the grant every five years.
“While both the Federal and Sabah governments have acknowledged their obligations by conducting a review in 2022 and 2023 respectively, a critical gap remains.
“The second mandatory review, originally due in 1974 was only undertaken in 2022, leaving 48 years being unaccounted for, a period referred to as ‘the lost years’ to Sabahans.
“The SLS asserts its legal rights to initiate this judicial review as a public interest litigation,” said Chin, who is the former SLS president.
The review is aimed at compelling the Federal and Sabah governments to conduct a comprehensive review on Article 112D involving the “lost years”, which is an outstanding amount owed to Sabah, and to obtain the court declaration of the definitive interpretation of net revenue and its compliance.
Sabah never waived its 40% revenue entitlement rights despite increases in the annual special grants in recent years.
In 2019, Sabah's special grant was doubled to RM53.4 million, while in 2022 it was increased to RM125.6 million and RM300 million in 2023 following reviews of the state’s annual special grant.
The higher special grants came after Sabah raised ire for having been paid a fixed amount of RM26.7 million from 1974 until 2018, without any of the mandatory reviews being held over the same period.
SLS' attempt to go through to the court to compel Putrajaya to honour the state's rights was not the only effort.
Twelve Sabah Pakatan Harapan lawmakers had also filed an originating summons to seek an order from the court to have the Federal Government acknowledge the state’s special privileges stipulated in the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63).
They later withdrew their suit after taking into account the establishment of the MA63 implementation action council under the present Madani Government and faced public backlash.
Late last year, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim during a visit to Penampang, reassured Sabahans again that he would resolve Sabah’s MA63 rights, which is now part of the Federal Constitution.
In the recent Sabah legislative assembly sitting, state finance minister Datuk Seri Masidi Manjun hinted that the state will engage an independent assessor to resolve the special grant issue should a decision on the 40% revenue entitlement come to a consensus between the Federal and Sabah Governments in July.
Sabah had said it could not determine its 40% revenue rights after Putrajaya did not provide all the data relating to the revenues despite the state having requested for them eight times.
Article 112D (6) of the Federal Constitution provides that the matter can be referred to an independent assessor should both parties not reach an agreement on the special grant. – The Vibes, May 2, 2024.
.jpg)
