KOTA KINABALU: The High Court ruled that the Federal Government has breached the fundamental right of the state government of Sabah and its people for not honouring the 40% net revenue entitlement.
Justice Celestina Stuel Galid made the decision after hearing submissions from all parties.
She had, among others, stated that the failure of the Federal Government to hold a second review in 1974 with the Sabah government is a breach and contravention of its constitutional duty stipulated under Article 112D, Clauses (1), (3) and (4) of the Federal Constitution.
This means that the 40% entitlement remains due and payable to Sabah for each consecutive financial year for the period from 1974 to 2021.
The court also allowed a mandamus order compelling the Federal Government to conduct another review with the Sabah government under the provisions of Article 112D of the Federal Constitution restoring this entitlement from the period of 1974 to 2021.
The review must be made within 30 days and to reach an agreement within 90 days from the date of this order, the court heard.
An order that the Federal Government pay the entitlement as determined under the Sabah government or as constitutional damages for breach of Article 13 of the Federal Constitution or both, was also made.
Counsels representing the Federal Government are expected to appeal the decision.
In this judicial review, the Sabah Law Society (SLS) acting as the applicant is represented by Dr David Fung Yin Kee, Jeyan Marimuttu and Janice Junie Lim.
The Government of the Federation of Malaysia is named the first respondent while the state government of Sabah is named the second respondent.
On Oct 17 last year, the Federal Court allowed SLS’s judicial application against the Federal Government for the return of 40% of revenue to the state to be heard by the Kota Kinabalu High Court.
SLS applied for judicial review in 2022 to compel Putrajaya to pay Sabah its constitutional right to 40% of revenue derived from the state.
The Kota Kinabalu High Court granted the application.
The Federal Government, via the Attorney General’s Chambers, appealed the decision and obtained a stay on proceedings in the High Court.
On June 18, the Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s decision on grounds that SLS had established the threshold for locus standi in the case.
