Commentary: Court to Decide What GRS Failed to Defend — Sabah’s Rightful 40% Revenue

By Daniel John Jambun, 8-7-2025

THE upcoming court decision on August 7 will mark a turning point in Sabah’s constitutional history — not just in terms of law, but also political accountability. The judicial review filed by the Sabah Law Society (SLS), with the support of civil society and concerned Sabahans, seeks to enforce what the Gabungan Rakyat Sabah (GRS) government has consistently failed to pursue: Sabah’s constitutional entitlement to 40% of federal revenue derived from the state.

1. A Breach GRS Refuses to Acknowledge

While the court is set to determine whether the federal government’s failure to conduct the 40% revenue review since 1974 constitutes a breach of Article 13 (right to property), it must be noted that the GRS government has taken no meaningful legal steps to defend this right. Instead, GRS leaders — notably Chief Minister Hajiji — have chosen to rely on vague negotiations with Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, bypassing institutional remedies and offering no transparency or timeframe.

2. Why the Court Must Intervene

The court is now the last line of defence. For nearly 50 years, successive federal administrations have violated Article 112C and 112D of the Federal Constitution — with no review, no formula, and no payment reflecting the 40% entitlement. GRS's passivity effectively green-lights this violation. The judiciary must now step in where political leadership has failed.

A mandamus order compelling the federal government to initiate the long-overdue review and engage in a constitutionally compliant process is not only justified — it is necessary. Unlike political negotiations behind closed doors, court orders are public, enforceable, and subject to constitutional standards.

3. Symbolic Damages or a New Precedent?

While it remains uncertain whether the court will award direct financial damages, a declaration of breach and an order for constitutional compliance will set a historic precedent — opening the door to future claims, negotiations under legal supervision, or even political reform.

4. GRS on the Wrong Side of History

It must be stressed: the GRS government is not a party to this case. Worse, it has publicly chosen to rely on "negotiated goodwill" with Anwar’s federal government — an approach that has already failed Sabah for five decades. Their refusal to support this judicial review reflects either a profound misunderstanding of federalism or a deliberate attempt to avoid confronting Putrajaya.

In contrast, it is the Sabah Law Society and concerned Sabahans — not the elected government — who are now defending the Constitution.

On August 7, the court may do what GRS would not: affirm Sabah’s constitutional rights and compel overdue accountability from the federal government.

✅ GRS abandoned the fight

✅ SLS carried the burden

✅ The court may now enforce what politics failed to deliver

This case is not just about Sabah’s money — it is about dignity, legal equality, and the failure of those in power to defend their own people.

Justice delayed must not be justice denied.

Daniel John Jambun is President of

Borneo's Plight in Malaysia Foundation (BoPiMaFo)

&

Change Advocate Movement Sabah (CAMOS).#Borneo Herald™