By Daniel John Jambun, Borneo’s Plight in Malaysia Foundation (BoPiMaFo)
Borneo’s Plight in Malaysia Foundation (BoPiMaFo) notes the latest statement by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim reaffirming that the Federal Government is committed to implementing Sabah’s constitutional entitlement to *40% of the net revenue derived from the state* as provided under the Federal Constitution and the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63).
The Prime Minister further stated that the matter is *“final”*, that it is *“not subject to appeal”*, and that the Federal Government has given a *categorical assurance* to honour the entitlement.
While such assurances may sound encouraging, they raise a fundamental and unavoidable question for the people of Sabah:
*If the matter is final and not subject to appeal, why did the Federal Government file an appeal and apply for a stay of execution on the High Court decision?*
Sabahans are not confused about the law.
They are confused by the *contradiction between what the Federal Government says publicly and what it is doing legally in court.*
Legally speaking, what does an appeal mean? An appeal in court is a legal process where a party asks a higher court to review and overturn a lower court’s decision due to legal errors.
On *17 October 2025*, the Kota Kinabalu High Court delivered a historic judgment in the judicial review brought by the Sabah Law Society. The Court recognised that Sabah’s constitutional financial safeguards had not been properly implemented for decades and issued a *mandamus order* compelling the Federal Government to carry out the constitutional review process.
The Court also imposed clear timelines to ensure that the long-overdue constitutional obligation would finally be addressed.
Yet despite public assurances that the Federal Government accepted the decision, the Attorney General subsequently filed an *appeal* and also sought a *stay of execution*.
From a practical standpoint, appealing the court’s orders and asking the court to suspend implementation *has the effect of delaying the very constitutional obligation the government now claims it is committed to honour.*
Sabahans therefore cannot be blamed for asking whether the Federal Government is truly committed to resolving the matter — or merely managing the political optics surrounding it.
The constitutional position is clear.
Sabah’s entitlement to *40% of the net revenue derived from the state is not a political concession, not a discretionary grant, and not a matter to be negotiated based on fiscal convenience.*
It is a *constitutional safeguard* agreed upon when Sabah entered the Federation of Malaysia in 1963.
Historical records make it clear that Sabah’s leaders did not enter the Federation lightly. There were serious reservations and concerns at the time. Sabah ultimately agreed to join the formation of Malaysia only after receiving assurances that certain *constitutional safeguards — including financial protections — would be respected.*
Among these safeguards was the provision ensuring that Sabah would receive 40% of the net revenue collected by the Federation from the state.*.
These safeguards were meant to protect Sabah’s economic interests and ensure that the wealth generated from its resources would benefit the people of the state.
If these constitutional assurances are now delayed, diluted or indefinitely postponed, it inevitably raises serious questions about whether the spirit and understanding upon which Malaysia was formed are being honoured.
If the Federal Government is sincere in its commitment to Sabah’s constitutional right, the path forward is simple and straightforward:
Withdraw the appeal.
Withdraw the stay application.
Implement the constitutional obligation.
Sabahans have waited *more than half a century* for the proper implementation of this constitutional safeguard.
They should not be asked to wait any longer.
The people of Sabah are not asking for charity.
*They are asking for the Constitution to be honoured.*
If the Federal Government truly believes that Sabah’s 40% entitlement is *“final”* then its actions must reflect its words.
Otherwise, Sabahans will inevitably conclude that while the commitment is declared in speeches, it is quietly resisted in court.
For far too long, Sabah has heard many promises.
*What the people of Sabah are waiting for now is not another promise — but the fulfilment of a constitutional duty.*
And Sabahans must also remember this fundamental truth:
If the constitutional safeguards promised to Sabah in 1963 — including the 40% revenue entitlement — had not been assured, Sabah might never have agreed to form Malaysia in the first place.
