THE judicial review seeking to enforce Sabah’s constitutional entitlement to 40% of federal revenue collected from the state will be heard in the High Court here on 7 July.
Senior Sabah lawyer Datuk Roger Chin said a public townhall session hosted by the Sabah Law Society (SLS) was being scheduled for June 20 to explain the background and legal framework of the case ahead of the hearing.
“This is not a political issue. It is a constitutional obligation that has gone unfulfilled for far too long,” he said.
The case was filed by the SLS in 2022. It alleges that the federal government failed to carry out a mandatory review of the special grant owed to Sabah under Article 112C and the Part IV of the Tenth Schedule of the Federal Constitution.
The review was due by 1974 but did not take place until 2022 — nearly five decades later.
The Second Review Order was gazetted in 2022. The first review order was made in 1969 and gazetted in 1970.
Chin has described the period from 1974 to 2021 as the “Lost Years”, during which no review was conducted, and no updated payments were made.
“The failure to review and make appropriate payments… represents a breach of duty under the Constitution,” he said.
The judicial review faced several early challenges, including objections over whether SLS had legal standing to bring the case.
The court later ruled that the matter could proceed to a full hearing, citing public interest and constitutional significance.
The federal government, named as the first respondent, maintains that it fulfilled its obligations through a fixed annual payment of RM26.7 million introduced after a 1969 review.
It argues that the 40% formula is no longer applicable and denies that any arrears are owed.
The Sabah state government, which is listed as the second respondent, acknowledges that no review was carried out until 2022.
However, the state argues that interim agreements signed in 2022 and 2023 do not amount to a waiver of rights.
It supports further reviews and, if necessary, a referral to an independent assessor under Article 112D(6).
Chin said the case carries broader implications beyond financial claims.
“What’s at stake here is more than money — it’s the integrity of the Constitution and how we define federalism in Malaysia,” he said. - May 21, 2025
