THE Sabah government has been unable to quell a public backlash although it has retracted the "misguided statements" of its lawyer in the appellate court in connection with Sabah’s 40% revenue claim.
Political parties on both sides of the divide continue to criticise the ruling Gabungan Rakyat Sabah (GRS) for its handling of the controversy, which has been dubbed a “legal blunder” concerning Sabah’s rights as in the federal constitution.
Sabah Attorney-General Datuk Nor Asiah Mohd Yusof, state legal adviser Datuk Brenndon Soh, and two other legal officers from the state Attorney-General Chambers took over the case on May 24.
This followed the statements made by the appointed lawyer, Tengku Fuad Ahmad, who claimed that Sabah’s 40% revenue entitlement was merely “aspirational” and not an “absolute right” during a hearing on May 16.
Fuad also argued that the Sabah Law Society lacked the locus standi to carry out the review, despite the effort being supported by the GRS.
The Sabah government has ordered the new legal team to retract all statements deemed “misguided” in the Court of Appeal.
The federal government is appealing to the court to overturn a high court decision from November 11, 2022, which allowed the SLS to carry out a judicial review of Sabah’s 40% revenue entitlement.
Under Article 112C of the Federal Constitution, Part IV of the Tenth Schedule, Sabah is entitled to 40%, or two-fifths, of the net revenue collected from the state by the federal government.
The SLS filed for a judicial review in June 2022 to determine the extent of lost revenue for the period between 1974 and 2022, during which Putrajaya defaulted on paying Sabah’s entitlement.
This issue arose because Putrajaya refused or failed to conduct a review every five years as required under Article 112D of the Federal Constitution. The first review was gazetted in 1968 and the second in 2022.
Status of appointed lawyer
Sabah Progressive Party (SAPP) president Datuk Seri Yong Teck Lee has questioned the Sabah government about the status of the appointed lawyer.
“(The question of) who authorised Fuad to represent Sabah on May 16 is still unanswered. What is the status? Where was the attorney-general during the appeal? Why was no lawyer from the Attorney-General’s Chambers present when Fuad appeared on May 16?”
“The people of Sabah deserve an explanation. We cannot act as though nothing happened,” he said.
Questions have also been raised about Sabah Pakatan Harapan leaders, who appear to have distanced themselves from the debacle.
Usno president Tan Sri Pandikar Amin Mulia criticised PH for their silence on the case, which has gain widespread interest among politicians and indigenous rights groups in the state.
In response, Sabah PH issued a joint statement declaring its support for the state government’s pursuit of the 40% revenue entitlement. However, it has resolved to wait for the formula to be decided by the Implementation Action Council and the technical committee headed by the prime minister.
The committee is expected to present a mechanism for the 40% revenue claim in July.
Political observers believe Sabah PH is keeping a low profile on the matter because of its alignment with the federal government.
Its position was evident when Sabah PH lawmakers withdrew their originating summons against Putrajaya over the 40% revenue claim in September 2023.
Despite heavy criticism for withdrawing the suit, 12 Sabah PH lawmakers defended their decision by pointing to the upcoming committee’s decision in July.
SAPP and Usno are components of Gabungan Rakyat Sabah led by Chief Minister Datuk Seri Hajiji Noor, while Sabah PH partners with GRS in running the state affairs. Sabah PH joined the ruling camp after GRS’s fallout with Barisan Nasional in early 2023.
Hajiji has been under constant pressure from all sides but has chosen to remain silent on the matter.
The Sabah chief minister previously dismissed the notion that the state’s claim was merely “aspirational” and instructed the Sabah Attorney General to correct any “misguided statements” that differ from Sabah’s formal position.
However, Hajiji has also faced pressure to remove the state attorney general and the appointed lawyer since the controversy broke on May 16.
He has dodged questions when approached by the media up until this point.
Hajiji had also not officially verified Tengku Fuad’s appointment but has instructed the Attorney-Generals Chambers to take over the case.
But Sabah Perikatan Nasional Chairman Datuk Ronald Kiandee said the state government has been negligent in handling the case while also confirming that the appointed lawyer, Tengku Fuad, was indeed authorised to represent the Sabah Government in the case.
Kiandee said Fuad’s appointment was confirmed by the Sabah attorney-general’s statement on May 24 stat that Fuad has ceased from representing the Sabah government.
“The Sabah government has now backtracked their stance after being heavily criticised. They are clearly passing the blame to the lawyer they appointed. It is clear the people of Sabah cannot rely on the Sabah government to fight for the state’s rights to reclaim the 40% revenue entitlement.
“They are inconsistent and messy, compromising state rights, which will ultimately cause the people to suffer,” he said. – May 27, 2024.
.jpeg)
