By Daniel John Jambun, Presdient Borneo’s Plight in Malaysia Foundation (BoPiMaFo)
KOTA KINABALU: Borneo’s Plight in Malaysia Foundation (BoPiMaFo) takes serious note of the Federal Government’s application filed on 3 March 2026 to stay the High Court Order of 17 October 2025 concerning Sabah’s 40% net revenue entitlement under Article 112D of the Federal Constitution.
Let us be clear.
The High Court did not issue political commentary. It declared a constitutional breach. It granted mandamus. It imposed fixed timelines for the review and agreement required under Article 112D.
Those timelines were not ornamental. They were imposed because decades of delay had already occurred.
By the Government’s own affidavit, the 90-day compliance period expired on 14 January 2026. Yet no stay was sought when judgment was delivered. None was sought in the weeks immediately following. None was sought before the first deadline lapsed.
The stay application was filed only on 3 March 2026 — after the first compliance period had already expired.
Sequence matters.
When a party genuinely believes that a court order should not operate pending appeal, it acts immediately to suspend its operation. It does not wait for deadlines to lapse before discovering urgency.
BoPiMaFo stresses that the right to appeal is unquestioned. Appeals are part of the rule of law.
What is in question is whether compliance with a constitutional duty can be treated as optional until enforcement becomes unavoidable.
Article 112D is not a policy preference. It forms part of the constitutional financial safeguards agreed at the formation of Malaysia in 1963. The review mechanism it provides is not discretionary. It is mandatory.
Mandamus was granted because prolonged non-performance had been established.
If constitutional performance now depends entirely on judicial compulsion — and timelines are resisted only when they become enforceable — then Sabahans are entitled to ask whether constitutional commitments are being honoured in spirit or merely managed procedurally.
This is not a confrontation with the Federation.
It is a call for constitutional seriousness.
The integrity of Malaysia’s federal system does not weaken when appeals are filed. It weakens when constitutional obligations are repeatedly deferred and urgency is invoked only when deadlines carry consequences.
Sabah’s 40% entitlement is not a political slogan. It is a constitutional mechanism embedded in the Federal Constitution itself.
BoPiMaFo urges all parties to recognise that the credibility of our constitutional order depends not only on litigation — but on timely obedience to constitutional duties.
In matters of federal finance, delay is not neutral. It has consequences for development, fiscal planning, and public trust.
The Constitution is strongest when compliance does not require coercion.
