By Daniel John Jambun, Borneo’s Plight in Malaysia Foundation (BoPiMaFo) “Justice for Sabah is not negotiable.”
KOTA KINABALU: Borneo’s Plight in Malaysia Foundation (BoPiMaFo) takes note of the statement by Hajiji Noor denying that there is pressure from Putrajaya over Sabah’s 40% revenue entitlement.
We respond with one direct question:
If there is no pressure — then why is there still no payment?
1. THIS IS NOT A NEGOTIATION — THIS IS A CONSTITUTIONAL DEBT
Sabah’s entitlement is not political.
It is not discretionary.
It is not subject to negotiation.
It is a constitutional obligation under:
Article 112C
Article 112D
The Tenth Schedule
This is reinforced by the High Court judgment of October 2025, which confirmed that:
Sabah’s 40% entitlement is legally enforceable
The failure to implement it is unlawful
Let us be absolutely clear:
Once a court has spoken, there is nothing left to “negotiate.”
There is only one duty — to comply.
2. “NO PRESSURE” IS A DISTRACTION FROM NON-DELIVERY
The issue is not whether there is pressure.
The issue is:
Why has the 90-day review timeline lapsed?
Why has the 180-day implementation window stalled?
Why is Sabah still receiving token sums instead of its lawful share?
If there is truly no pressure from Putrajaya, then the failure becomes even more serious:
It means Sabah’s own leadership is failing to enforce what is already won.
3. PUTRAJAYA CANNOT HIDE BEHIND LEGAL MANOEUVRES
The Federal Government’s decision to seek a stay of execution does not erase constitutional responsibility.
It exposes it.
A stay does not mean:
the right disappears
the obligation is suspended in principle
the people must remain silent
It only means one thing:
Putrajaya is buying time — while Sabah is losing money.
4. IF THE LAW IS CLEAR — WHY THE SILENCE AND SECRECY?
Serious questions now arise:
Why are negotiations conducted without full public disclosure?
Why has the Sabah State Assembly not passed a binding, unified resolution?
Why is external legal counsel being engaged if the right is already settled?
These are not technical questions.
They are questions of political will.
5. SABAH MUST STOP BEHAVING LIKE A PETITIONER
Sabah is not asking for charity.
Sabah is not seeking federal goodwill.
Sabah is not a subordinate administrative unit.
Sabah is a founding partner in Malaysia under MA63.
And a founding partner does not beg.
A founding partner demands compliance with the Constitution.
6. THIS IS NOW A TEST OF LEADERSHIP — NOT LAW
The law is already clear.
The court has already ruled.
The Constitution has already spoken.
The only thing left in question is this:
Will Sabah’s leadership enforce the law — or continue to manage the optics?
FINAL POSITION
BoPiMaFo states in the strongest possible terms:
The 40% revenue entitlement is a constitutional debt owed to Sabah
Continued delay constitutes a continuing breach of public duty
Both Putrajaya and the Sabah State Government must be held accountable
And we repeat:
IF THERE IS NO PRESSURE — THEN THERE IS NO EXCUSE
