KOTA KINABALU: The Court of Appeal’s decision to grant a stay of the High Court’s order on Sabah’s 40% entitlement is “deeply disappointing”, said nominated Assemblyman Datuk Roger Chin.
In a statement, Chin said the disappointment is not because it determines Sabah’s rights, but because it removes the one element that had finally forced this matter forward after decades of inaction — a binding timeline.
Chin said, the Court of Appeal granted the stay on the basis that it had jurisdiction under section 44 of the Courts of Judicature Act, and that “special circumstances” had been established.
These included the scale and complexity of the exercise, the potential financial consequences, and concerns that the High Court’s order did not fully reflect the constitutional mechanics of the review, including the absence of reference to an independent assessor.
“It must be said plainly that Sabah’s entitlement is not in dispute. It is provided for in the Constitution, it has been acknowledged, and the Federal Government does not deny that a review must be carried out. The difficulty has never been the existence of the right; it has always been whether that right will be honoured in practice.
“What the High Court did, and why it mattered, was to impose structure on what had long been an open-ended process. It required that the constitutional review be conducted within a defined period and that an agreement be reached within a fixed timeframe. That was not incidental. It was a direct response to a history in which the obligation existed, discussions took place, but nothing was ever brought to conclusion.
“The stay removes that structure,” he said in his statement.
He noted that the review involves decades of financial records and carries significant fiscal implications.
“That may be so, but none of this is new. These are the same conditions that have existed for decades. If they are accepted as justification for slowing down now, they will continue to justify delay indefinitely, and complexity will cease to be an explanation and become a permanent excuse.”
Chin said what has been lost is not the right itself, but the urgency to honour it. The obligation remains in principle, but it is no longer tied to a deadline or backed by immediate consequence. It returns to a position where progress depends, once again, on negotiation, discretion, and ultimately, political will — a position Sabah is all too familiar with.
He emphasised that the stay does not prevent the review from proceeding, particularly for the current financial years.
“There is no dispute as to the existence of the constitutional formula, nor is there any dispute that a review under Article 112D is required. The stay affects the timelines imposed by the Court; it does not suspend the underlying constitutional duty. There is therefore no legal impediment to continuing the review process and working towards implementation, including on a prospective basis,” he said.
Chin said if the Federal Government is sincere in saying that more time is required, then this moment should not result in a slowing of effort.
“Negotiations must continue, and they must intensify rather than pause pending the appeal. The fact that only four meetings have taken place, in the context of a constitutional obligation that has remained unresolved for decades, is, to put it plainly, inadequate. Time cannot now be relied upon both as justification and as refuge.”
He added that this decision matters beyond the legal process. A constitutional right that is acknowledged but not implemented is, in practical terms, no right at all, and a duty that is accepted but not performed offers no protection to the people it was meant to serve.
“Sabah is not asking for something new, nor is this a matter of policy or discretion; it is a matter of compliance with what has long formed part of the constitutional framework,” he said.
Chin said, while the appeal will proceed and the courts will determine the proper framework for the review, the more immediate question is whether this process will now move forward with seriousness, or whether it will once again be allowed to drift under the cover of procedure.
“If it does drift, then the issue cannot honestly be said to be legal; it will be, quite simply, the continued acceptance of delay in place of compliance.”
