Claim that 40pc entitlement not being appealed misleading, says Roger Chin

16 March 2026

KOTA KINABALU: Statements that the Federal Government is not appealing Sabah’s 40 per cent revenue entitlement are misleading as the appeal filed in court challenges key findings that give effect to the constitutional right, said Nominated State Assemblyman Datuk Roger Chin.

Roger said although the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, has stated that the Federal Government is not disputing Sabah’s 40 per cent entitlement, the Memorandum of Appeal filed by the Attorney General contests the High Court’s findings that the government had breached its constitutional duty.

According to him the appeal also seeks to overturn the court’s orders requiring a fresh review to be conducted, an accounting of the sums owed to Sabah and the payment of constitutional damages.

He added the distinction was significant as the High Court’s ruling did not question the existence of Sabah’s entitlement under the Federal Constitution, but instead examined whether the entitlement had been properly implemented.

“After reviewing the constitutional framework and the historical record, the court found that the Federal Government failed to conduct the second review required under Article 112D after 1973, resulting in Sabah’s entitlement not being properly implemented for nearly five decades.

“The court subsequently declared that the failure constituted a breach of constitutional duty and ruled that the 40 per cent entitlement remained due and payable for every year from 1974 to 2021,” he said.

Roger noted that the High Court also ordered that a proper review be conducted within a specified timeframe, required the parties involved to account for the sums owed and recognised that the prolonged failure to pay Sabah its entitlement amounted to a breach of constitutional rights.

“These findings are what give real meaning to the 40 per cent entitlement. However, these are precisely the findings now being challenged through the appeal,” he said.

The appeal, he added, disputes the High Court’s conclusion that the government had breached its constitutional duty, challenges the declaration that the Gazette Orders were unlawful and seeks to set aside orders requiring a fresh review, an accounting of the sums owed and the payment of constitutional damages.

“In other words, the appeal does not dispute the existence of the right, but it disputes the consequences of violating that right.

“This is why saying “we are not appealing the 40 per cent” is misleading,” he said.

Roger stressed a constitutional entitlement would only carry real significance when the law recognised that it had been breached and required corrective action.

He cautioned that if the appeal succeeded, the 40 per cent entitlement might remain stated in the Constitution, but the legal findings explaining why Sabah was deprived of it for decades could be removed, along with the requirement to account for the unpaid sums and the obligation to remedy the breach.

“That would leave Sabah with a constitutional right that exists on paper but carries no real consequence when it is ignored.

“The key issue before the Court of Appeal was no longer whether Sabah had a 40 per cent entitlement, as this was already provided for in the Constitution, but whether the failure to honour that entitlement for nearly half a century should carry legal consequences,” he said.