The court did not deny Sabah’s right – It allowed Putrajaya to delay it

By Daniel John Jambun, Borneo’s Plight in Malaysia Foundation (BoPiMaFo

KOTA KINABALU: Borneo’s Plight in Malaysia Foundation (BoPiMaFo) refers to the decision of the Court of Appeal Malaysia granting a stay of execution in Sabah’s 40% revenue entitlement case.

Let us be absolutely clear:

This is not a victory for justice.

This is a victory for delay.

1. SABAH’S RIGHT REMAINS — BUT ITS ENFORCEMENT IS FROZEN

The Court did not overturn the High Court decision.

The Court did not say Sabah is not entitled.

The Court did not dispute Articles 112C and 112D.

Instead, the Court has done one thing:

It has paused the consequences of the Federal Government’s failure to comply.

This means:

Sabah’s constitutional right still exists

But Sabah cannot enforce it

And the Federal Government walks away — for now

This is not justice delivered.

This is justice postponed.

2. “COMPLEXITY” IS NOT AN EXCUSE — IT IS AN ADMISSION OF DECADES OF FAILURE

The Federal Government argued:

the calculations are complex

the data is voluminous

the financial impact is significant

Let us respond plainly:

This obligation has existed since 1974.

If the Federal Government today claims it cannot compute what it owes —

then it is effectively admitting that it has failed to properly account for Sabah’s constitutional rights for over 50 years.

Complexity is not a justification.

It is evidence of systemic neglect.

3. THE TIMING EXPOSES THE REAL STRATEGY — DELAY, NOT COMPLIANCE

Let us not ignore the sequence:

The High Court gave 90 days for review

That deadline passed

Only then did the Federal Government seek a stay

This is not coincidence.

This is strategy.

Delay the process

Avoid immediate compliance

Push the issue into prolonged litigation

This is not governance.

This is evasion dressed up as legal process.

4. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ADMITS THE RIGHT — BUT REFUSES THE RESULT

Even more telling:

The Federal Government does not deny Sabah’s entitlement.

It only disputes:

the formula

the method

the outcome

Let us call this what it is:

An acceptance of principle — combined with resistance to consequence.

In simple terms:

“Yes, Sabah has the right.”

“But no, we are not ready to honour it.”

5. A STAY DOES NOT ERASE THE CONSTITUTION

The Malaysian public must understand this clearly:

A stay of execution does not mean Sabah has lost.

It means:

The Federal Government has been given more time

To delay compliance with a constitutional obligation

The right remains.

The debt remains.

The injustice remains.

6. THIS IS NO LONGER JUST A LEGAL ISSUE — IT IS A TEST OF POLITICAL HONESTY

The question now shifts to the leadership of Anwar Ibrahim:

If the Prime Minister truly believes in:

rule of law

consistency

fairness

Then the question is simple:

Why must Sabah fight in court for what is already guaranteed in the Constitution?

And more importantly:

Why is every step forward met with another delay?

7. SABAH MUST NOT BE PUSHED BACK INTO NEGOTIATION WITHOUT JUSTICE

With this stay, Sabah is effectively pushed back into:

negotiations

discussions

technical committees

But let us be clear:

Sabah has negotiated for decades.

Sabah has waited for decades.

Sabah has been patient for decades.

What Sabah is demanding today is not negotiation — it is compliance.

THIS IS A PAUSE IN JUSTICE — NOT THE END OF THE FIGHT

The Court has not taken away Sabah’s right.

It has merely allowed the Federal Government more time to delay honouring it.

BoPiMaFo therefore states:

This fight is far from over

The constitutional right remains intact

And Sabahans will not accept indefinite postponement disguised as process

Because in the end:

A right delayed for too long becomes a right denied.

And Sabah has already waited long enough.

Related Articles

253FansLike

Latest Articles