By Daniel John Jambun, President Change Advocate Movement Sabah (CAMOS)
KOTA KINABALU — The latest Notice of Appeal filed by the Federal Government against the landmark Kota Kinabalu High Court decision on Sabah’s constitutional 40% net revenue entitlement is not a cosmetic amendment, nor a harmless clarification. It is a substantive and material alteration that fundamentally changes the nature of the appeal and strikes at the very core of Sabah’s constitutional rights.
This must be clearly understood:
The appeal now goes far beyond mere “technical issues.”
It seeks to undermine the enforceability, timelines, and legal findings that give the 40% entitlement real meaning.
1. The insertion of the new “procedure/process under Article 112D” clause is a calculated attempt to dismantle the High Court’s enforcement mechanism
The High Court had expressly imposed:
a 90-day deadline for a lawful review to take place; and
a 180-day extension only where strictly necessary.
These timelines were not decorative. They were the Court’s remedy for 48 years of inexcusable delay and constitutional breach.
By inserting new language appealing the “procedure and/or process” of conducting a review under Article 112D — language absent from the original Notice of Appeal — the Federal Government is now directly attacking:
the validity of the Court-imposed timelines,
the enforceability of the Court’s orders, and
Sabah’s ability to hold Putrajaya accountable for compliance.
This transforms the appeal into a challenge against the Court’s supervisory powers and creates a pathway for further delay, evasion, and administrative stalling.
2. The new “disclaimer” claiming the Federal Government is not appealing the formula is legally misleading
The revised Notice now asserts that Putrajaya is “not appealing the 40% formula nor the requirement for a review.”
This is a false comfort designed to mislead the public.
Even if the formula remains “on paper,” the revised appeal still targets the very findings that make the formula enforceable, including:
the High Court’s declaration that the Federal Government breached its constitutional duty;
the finding that no valid review occurred since 1973;
the ruling that the 2022–2025 Federal Gazettes are invalid; and
the order for constitutional damages.
A formula that cannot be enforced is a dead formula.
Leaving the formula untouched while appealing the foundations that give it force is equivalent to:
“Accepting the house but appealing the pillars that hold it up.”
This is not good faith. It is sophisticated avoidance.
3. The expansion of the appeal to include the “Lost Years” is a direct attack on Sabah’s historical entitlement
The High Court’s acknowledgement of the 48-year period (1974–2021) during which Sabah’s mandatory review was unlawfully neglected is central to:
accountability for past breaches,
justification for remedial measures, and
the legal context for damages.
By widening the appeal to capture this finding, the Federal Government is now seeking to erase the judicial recognition of nearly five decades of constitutional non-compliance.
This is an attempt to sanitize the Federal Government’s past failures and avoid responsibility for the colossal financial loss suffered by Sabah.
4. The revised appeal is broader, deeper, and more damaging than the original
The public must not be deceived by political statements minimising the appeal.
This new Notice of Appeal:
expands the scope,
changes the legal character,
revives issues previously unchallenged, and
targets the substantive heart of the High Court’s judgment, not mere technicalities.
This is a deliberate and strategic shift — not an administrative update.
5. The so-called “40% negotiations” are political theatre — not a solution
The recent announcement that the Federal and Sabah Governments have “begun negotiations” on the 40% entitlement is a contradiction of the highest order.
You cannot negotiate what you are actively appealing in court.
Commencing discussions while simultaneously filing a revised Notice of Appeal that:
challenges the enforcement mechanism,
disputes the timelines,
attacks the findings of constitutional breach, and
seeks to weaken the judgment,
is nothing more than an attempt to create political optics ahead of the election.
This exercise cannot be taken seriously.
It is a public relations strategy, not a genuine commitment to honour constitutional obligations.
Negotiating a constitutional right is itself flawed.
The Federal Government has only two lawful options:
Comply with the High Court judgment, or
Continue violating it.
Everything else is political staging.
6. What is truly at stake
If this revised appeal succeeds, Sabah risks losing:
Court-mandated timelines,
Accountability for the Lost Years,
Constitutional damages,
Judicial recognition of Federal breaches, and
The ability to enforce the 40% formula in practice.
Sabah may be left with a symbolic right—
a constitutional shell with no enforceable content.
Conclusion: Sabahans deserve honesty, not legal gymnastics
The Federal Government must stop hiding behind the narrative that this is a “partial appeal.”
The revised Notice is an attempt to disarm the judgment while pretending to accept it.
Sabahans have waited 48 years for justice.
We will not tolerate further delay disguised as legal technicality or political performance.
The people deserve a government that respects constitutional obligations — not one that rewrites its appeal while staging negotiations to weaken Sabah’s rights behind closed doors.
