By Daniel John Jambun, President Change Advocate Movement of Sabah (CAMOS)
KOTA KINABALU: Change Advocate Movement of Sabah (CAMOS) issue this statement as a strong reminder following the lapse of 90 days since the High Court judgment on Sabah’s constitutional entitlement to 40% of net federal revenue under Article 112D.
What has transpired to date cannot be defended as compliance.
This is no longer delay — it is active risk of non-compliance
The High Court imposed clear, binding, and enforceable obligations.
It did not permit symbolic engagement, open-ended postponements, or minimal procedural gestures.
At this stage:
only one preliminary meeting has occurred,
no agreed accounting methodology exists,
no disclosure of relevant federal revenue data has been made,
no substantive engagement on quantum has taken place,
no binding timeline has been proposed, and
a scheduled meeting was postponed without rescheduling.
Half of the court-mandated 180-day period has elapsed.
There is now no credible pathway to compliance unless the Federal Government changes course immediately.
Article 112D review is a constitutional duty — not a political negotiation
CAMOS emphasise that an Article 112D review is:
mandatory, not discretionary,
constitutional, not political,
and substantive, not symbolic.
The Federal Government is not at liberty to redefine the Court’s order into a casual consultative exercise.
To do so is to undermine the authority of the High Court and the supremacy of the Federal Constitution.
Delay may amount to bad faith and constructive non-compliance
In constitutional jurisprudence, persistent inaction, postponement, and minimal engagement after a court-ordered timeline may constitute:
bad-faith compliance, and
constructive defiance of judicial authority.
The continued absence of urgency, transparency, and substance exposes the Respondents to serious legal consequences.
This is a constitutional test — not only for Sabah, but for Malaysia
This situation now tests a fundamental question:
> Are High Court judgments involving MA63 enforceable law,
or are they treated as negotiable inconveniences?
If the latter, then Sabah’s constitutional position risks being reduced to a fiction, and the rule of law itself is weakened.
A strong reminder: escalation is imminent
CAMOS put the Federal Government on notice that continued failure to demonstrate genuine, active, and bona fide compliance will leave no option but escalation, including but not limited to:
applications for judicial enforcement and further directions,
pursuit of contempt or non-compliance findings, and
intensified domestic and international advocacy highlighting Malaysia’s failure to honour constitutional guarantees arising from MA63.
This is not a threat.
It is the natural legal consequence of ignoring a binding court order.
What immediate compliance now requires
To avert escalation, the Federal Government must without delay:
1. Fix regular, scheduled negotiation dates with no further postponements;
2. Provide full and timely disclosure of all revenue data relevant to Sabah;
3. Engage substantively on quantum, methodology, and arrears; and
4. Commit to a clear, court-compliant timeline concluding the Article 112D review within 180 days.
Anything less will be treated as continued non-compliance.
The High Court has spoken.
The Constitution is clear.
Sabah’s entitlement is not a favour, not a grant, and not a political bargaining chip.
If delay continues, this matter will move decisively from negotiation to enforcement.
Sabah has waited long enough.
