A VIDEO released recently by Datuk Armizan Mohd Ali has brought an old parliamentary spat back into focus — one that has taken on new meaning after the High Court’s ruling on Sabah’s 40% revenue entitlement.
In the clip, the minister in the Prime Minister’s Department replayed his 2023 debate with Tuaran MP Datuk Seri Wilfred Madius Tangau.
At the time, Armizan had accused Tangau of “confusing Parliament” for insisting that Articles 112C and 112D of the Federal Constitution were not the same.
But the High Court’s decision on Friday appears to confirm Tangau’s view, declaring that the two provisions are different but connected — with one defining Sabah’s right and the other setting the review process.
“Who is confusing Parliament and the people of Sabah?” Armizan asked in the video.
“Forty per cent of the special grant is our right, but it’s difficult when our own leaders are confused — and worse, confuse others.”
Attacks on Shafie resurface
Armizan also used the video to criticise former chief minister Datuk Seri Mohd Shafie Apdal, accusing him of accepting a “raw deal” from Putrajaya during his time in office.
He claimed Shafie’s Warisan-led government accepted a RM53.4 million payment from the federal government in 2019 — far below what Sabah should have received under Article 112C.
“It’s simple,” Armizan said. “RM53.4 million is nowhere near 40 per cent. When they were in power, they did things differently — they could think ‘federal first, state’s rights later’.”
He further challenged Tangau, who was Shafie’s deputy chief minister at the time, to confirm whether the 2019 Cabinet accepted the offer based on the country’s financial situation and federal debt levels.
Shafie’s response: No review order was signed
Shafie quickly fired back, saying his administration never signed or endorsed any “review order” under Article 112D — unlike the current Gabungan Rakyat Sabah (GRS) government, whose 2022 and 2023 review orders were struck down by the court as unconstitutional.
“I disagreed with the formula,” Shafie said. “Yes, we considered the national financial situation at the time, but ask them to check the Cabinet minutes — I said no, the formula was not right.”
He said the RM53 million payment was meant as a temporary arrangement during a period of tight federal finances, following the 1MDB scandal, while his government continued to push for the full 40% entitlement.
“As far as I know, we never signed anything,” Shafie added. “We insisted on the 40 per cent implementation and nothing less.”
What the court decided
In her judgment, Justice Datuk Celestina Stuel Galid ruled that Article 112C defines Sabah’s 40% entitlement, while Article 112D requires both the federal and state governments to review it every five years.
She called the federal government’s failure to conduct reviews since 1974 “unreasonable and absurd,” declaring the 2022 and 2023 review orders “unlawful and ultra vires” the Constitution.
“The words ‘at the time of the review’ cannot be ignored,” she said, stressing that the review duty was mandatory, not optional.
In essence, the court found that Article 112C establishes the right, and Article 112D sets the process — validating Tangau’s original argument and undermining Armizan’s earlier claim in Parliament. - October 18, 2025
