KOTA KINABALU: The Court of Appeal’s stay order on the Oct 17 Kota Kinabalu High Court ruling regarding Sabah’s 40% revenue rights should not prevent the Federal Government from fulfilling its constitutional duty to return the state’s entitlement, says state rights activist Datuk Roger Chin.
“The stay affects the timelines imposed by the High Court, but it does not suspend the underlying constitutional duty. There is therefore no legal impediment to continuing the review process and working towards implementation, including on a prospective basis,” said Chin, a nominated assemblyman under the Gabungan Rakyat Sabah (GRS) government.
He stressed that the stay order does not prevent the review from proceeding, particularly for current financial years.
Chin noted there was no dispute over the existence of the constitutional formula for Sabah’s revenue rights, nor over the requirement for a review under Article 112D of the Federal Constitution.
“If the Federal Government is sincere in saying that more time is required, then this moment should not result in a slowing of effort. Negotiations must continue, and they must intensify rather than pause pending the appeal,” said Chin, who previously served as president of the Sabah Law Society when it initiated the judicial review to recover the "lost years" of revenue between 1974 and 2021.
Chin lamented that, despite the High Court’s timeline for the state and federal governments to resolve the issue, only four meetings had been held, which he described as inadequate.
He argued that Sabah’s constitutional rights to revenue extend beyond the legal process.
“A constitutional right that is acknowledged but not implemented is, in practical terms, no right at all. A duty that is accepted but not performed offers no protection to the people it was meant to serve. Sabah is not asking for something new, nor is this a matter of policy or discretion, it is a matter of compliance with what has long formed part of the constitutional framework.”
Chin expressed concern that while the Federal Government’s appeal will proceed and the courts will determine the proper framework for review, the more immediate question is whether the process will move forward with seriousness or drift under the cover of procedure.
“If it does drift, then the issue cannot honestly be said to be legal. It will be, quite simply, the continued acceptance of delay in place of compliance,” he said.
He described the Court of Appeal’s decision to grant a stay of the High Court’s order on Sabah’s 40% entitlement as deeply disappointing—not because it determined Sabah’s rights, but because it removed the one element that had finally forced the matter forward after decades of inaction into a binding timeline.
The appellate court granted the stay, asserting it had jurisdiction under Section 44 of the Courts of Judicature Act, and that “special circumstances” had been established. He observed that these included the scale and complexity of the exercise, the potential financial consequences, and concerns that the High Court’s order did not fully reflect the constitutional mechanics of the review, such as the absence of reference to an independent assessor.
Chin said that the stay order removed the timeline set by the High Court, which had required the constitutional review to be conducted within a defined period and an agreement reached within a fixed timeframe.
