Judicial Review on Sabah’s 40% Revenue: A Historic Reckoning with Constitutional Truth

High Court Judge Datuk Celestina Stuel Galid is the current judge in Kota Kinabalu hearing the "Sabah 40% case".

By Daniel John Jambun, 8-7-2025

THE judicial review initiated by the Sabah Law Society (SLS) is not merely a legal challenge — it is a constitutional reckoning. 

The Federal Government’s 48-year failure to conduct a proper review under Article 112D, and its continued payment of an outdated RM26.7 million grant from 1974 to 2021, is being brought before the courts not as a political issue, but as a matter of constitutional fidelity.

1. A Case Built on Strong Constitutional Foundation

SLS has built a compelling case by anchoring its arguments in:

Article 112C (grant entitlement based on 40% net federal revenue from Sabah),

Article 112D (mandatory 5-year review provisions),

Part IV of the Tenth Schedule (formula and mechanism for calculating the entitlement).

What strengthens SLS’s position is the clarity of the language in the Constitution — the use of the word “shall” in Article 112D makes the review process a mandatory obligation, not a political negotiation. The argument that the 1969 Review Order remains in force for 48 years without a new agreement is both illogical and unconstitutional.

2. The Federal Government’s Position Is Unconvincing

The Federal Government's claim of an “ongoing review” without documentary evidence is legally untenable. The court was right to challenge this, asking directly: Where is the proof? The answer — “classified documents” or "take our word for it" — insults the very principles of judicial review and accountability.

Moreover, paying the same RM26.7 million for 48 years without recalculating based on Sabah’s actual economic growth is a clear dereliction of duty.

3. Sabah State Government’s Position: Half-Hearted and Politically Compromised

The Sabah State Government’s stance — that it reserves its right to claim arrears while accepting interim payments “without prejudice” — may appear legally strategic, but it also exposes its political failure to assert Sabah’s rights proactively. Despite supporting declaratory reliefs, the state government opposes the quashing of the 2022 Review Order — a contradiction that suggests it is walking a political tightrope to appease Putrajaya.

This confirms what many Sabahans already suspect: the Hajiji-led GRS government lacks the political will and moral courage to confront the Federal Government.

4. The Judiciary’s Role: Guardian of Federalism

Her Ladyship YA Datuk Celestina Stuel Galid rightly emphasized that jurisdictional issues must be addressed, but she did not allow them to derail the substantive hearing — a commendable move. The judiciary is now called to answer a critical question:

> “Can the constitutional safeguards for Sabah, as agreed in 1963, be indefinitely ignored by executive inaction and political convenience?”

If the court rules in favour of SLS — issuing a declaration of breach and possibly a mandamus order to compel a proper review — it will mark a landmark moment in restoring constitutional balance within the Malaysian Federation.

Opinion: The Lost 48 Years Are a Legal, Moral, and Political Failure

Legally, the Federal Government failed to comply with a constitutional duty.

Morally, Sabah’s people have been shortchanged for nearly five decades.

Politically, the GRS government is complicit by omission — choosing quiet diplomacy over constitutional enforcement.

This judicial review may be the last and only avenue for Sabahans to reclaim what was promised in the Malaysia Agreement 1963. It is not a claim for handouts — it is a fight for fiscal justice, dignity, and true federalism.

The High Court has an opportunity — and a duty — to declare that constitutional rights cannot be brushed aside by administrative neglect or political expediency. Win or lose, this case has already succeeded in exposing the depth of federal disregard and the cowardice of those in power.

On 7 August, when the court reconvenes for directions, Sabahans must stand vigilant. This is not just about law. It is about Sabah’s place in this Federation — and whether our rights are worth the paper they’re written on.

Justice for Sabah must not be postponed for another generation.

Daniel John Jambun is President of

Borneo's Plight in Malaysia Foundation

&

Change Advocate Movement Sabah.#~Borneo Herald™