By DANIEL JOHN JAMBUN, President Change Advocate Movement of Sabah (CAMOS)
KOTA KINABALU: The Change Advocate Movement of Sabah (CAMOS) welcomes all sincere efforts to restore Sabah’s long-denied constitutional rights, particularly our 40 per cent revenue entitlement under Articles 112C and 112D of the Federal Constitution.
However, CAMOS must state clearly, firmly, and without ambiguity that Sabah does not require any constitutional amendment or fresh Parliamentary approval to receive its 40% entitlement. This right already exists in the Federal Constitution and has now been judicially affirmed.
The Kota Kinabalu High Court has issued a mandamus order compelling the Federal Government to conduct the long-overdue revenue review and to restore Sabah’s constitutional entitlement. This is not a political opinion or policy proposal — it is a binding court judgment.
For clarity, under Articles 112C and 112D, Sabah’s 40% entitlement already exists as a constitutional right. Once a proper revenue review is carried out, the Federal Government is legally required to return Sabah’s share.
No constitutional amendment or new Parliamentary approval is needed to activate or validate this entitlement. Parliament’s role relates only to budgetary and administrative matters after this constitutional duty has been fulfilled.
The High Court’s mandamus order does not create a new right for Sabah; it simply compels the Federal Government to do what the Constitution has required all along.
CAMOS further emphasises a fundamental principle that must not be distorted or evaded: all companies operating, extracting resources, or conducting business in Sabah generate their income in Sabah, and that income is therefore Sabah-derived revenue.
The fact that taxes are administratively paid, processed, or booked in Kuala Lumpur does not change where the revenue is generated. Whether involving oil and gas operations, plantations, mining, logging, telecommunications, banking, utilities, tourism, or other large federal-licensed enterprises, the taxable economic activity occurs on Sabah soil, using Sabah’s land, waters, labour, and resources.
Under Articles 112C and 112D, Sabah’s entitlement is calculated based on net federal revenue derived from Sabah, not on centralised accounting practices that divert or obscure collections.
Any claim that Sabah “cannot count” such revenue merely because payments are processed elsewhere is legally unsound and would allow constitutional obligations to be defeated by bookkeeping — something the Constitution never intended.
Accordingly, the most urgent task before Sabah today is not to pursue new constitutional amendments, but to enforce compliance with the existing Constitution and the court judgment.
Proposals for Sabah to collect federal revenues directly and remit a portion to the Federation constitute structural and administrative reforms that would require constitutional amendments and Parliamentary approval.
While such ideas may be discussed as long-term governance reforms, they must not be allowed to distract from, delay, or weaken Sabah’s strongest and clearest legal position at this critical stage.
CAMOS also cautions that a mandamus order of the High Court is not advisory and cannot be ignored, deferred, or selectively complied with.
Continued failure to carry out the court-ordered revenue review and restoration process exposes responsible federal authorities to serious legal consequences, including further court proceedings to compel compliance. In a constitutional democracy governed by the rule of law, court judgments must be obeyed regardless of political convenience, and no administrative practice or policy preference can override a binding judicial order.
The reality is simple: the Federal Government is already in breach of the Constitution.
The High Court has spoken. What is required now is implementation — not renegotiation, not political bargaining, and not procedural diversion.
Sabahans have waited nearly five decades for constitutional justice. We must not allow technical manoeuvres, shifting goalposts, or well-intentioned but mistimed proposals to derail the clear legal path now before us.
First: enforce the judgment.
Second: account for all Sabah-derived revenue where it belongs.
Third: recover Sabah’s full 40% entitlement.
Only after the law has been obeyed should broader structural reforms be discussed.
