The Federal Government’s “Revised” Notice of Appeal Is a Direct Attack on Sabah’s 40% Right: Stop Misleading the People

18 November 2025

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.

According to a statement by Daniel John Jambun, President, Change Advocate Movement Sabah (CAMOS) 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.

The statement stresses that 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, but 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.

Daniel adds that this transforms the appeal into a challenge against the Court’s supervisory powers and creates a pathway for further delay, evasion, and administrative stalling.

According to him, the revised Notice asserts that Putrajaya is “not appealing the 40% formula nor the requirement for a review.”

However, he describes this as 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.

He emphasises: “A formula that cannot be enforced is a dead formula,” comparing the government’s approach to “accepting the house but appealing the pillars that hold it up.”

“This is not good faith. It is sophisticated avoidance” Daniel stressed.

He highlights that the High Court’s acknowledgment of the 48-year period (1974–2021) during which Sabah’s mandatory review was unlawfully neglected is central to accountability, 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 judicial recognition of nearly five decades of constitutional non-compliance, he opined, adding this is an attempt to sanitise the Federal Government’s past failures and avoid responsibility for Sabah’s colossal financial loss.

The public is warned not to be deceived by political statements minimising the appeal.

According to Daniel , the 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,” he said.

He labels the recent announcement that Federal and Sabah Governments have “begun negotiations” on the 40% entitlement as a contradiction of the highest order.

“You cannot negotiate what you are actively appealing in court,” he says, arguing that commencing discussions while simultaneously filing a revised Notice of Appeal that challenges the enforcement mechanism, disputes the timelines, attacks findings of constitutional breach, and seeks to weaken the judgment is merely 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.”

He insists that negotiating a constitutional right is flawed, and asserts that the Federal Government has only two lawful options: comply with the High Court judgment, or continue violating it. “Everything else is political staging.”

He warns that if the 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,” he says.

He concludes that Sabahans deserve honesty, not legal gymnastics.

It asserts that the Federal Government must stop hiding behind the narrative of a “partial appeal,” stating that 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.”