Petros vs Petronas: High Court loss won’t affect MA63 challenge, says deputy minister

KUCHING (Feb 25): Today’s court decision between Petroliam Nasional Berhad (Petronas) and Petroleum Sarawak Berhad (Petros) is purely a commercial matter, said Deputy Minister in the Sarawak Premier’s Department Law, MA63 and State-Federal Relations) Datuk Sharifah Hasidah Sayeed Aman Ghazali.

According to a Sarawak Public Communications Unit (Ukas) report, she emphasised that the ruling does not affect the Sarawak government’s ongoing petition at the Federal Court seeking legal clarity on the state’s rights under the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63).

She said the public must understand that the court ruling bears no connection to the legal action initiated by the Sarawak government, as both matters differ in scope and purpose.

“The Petros and Petronas case is a commercial case that they brought to court, and the court’s decision is one that we as citizens must respect.

“However, it has no relation and does not impact the petition we filed at the Federal Court. Our petition is to obtain legal clarity on the laws that exist between the state and the Federation.

“Therefore, these two matters are different and it does not mean that the court’s decision in the commercial case will influence our petition,” she told reporters after the handover ceremony of the Taman Sukma Hall project here.

Sharifah Hasidah added that the Sarawak government remains committed to proceeding with the ongoing legal process to ensure the state’s rights are clarified through proper legal channels, thereby avoiding confusion among the public on the issue.

“This is evident through the state government’s efforts and commitment in fighting for the rights of the people of Sarawak through MA63,” she said.

Earlier today, the High Court here has ruled that Petronas demand for a bank guarantee of RM7.95 million from Petros was valid, as Petros had failed to prove that the call on the bank guarantee was either unconscionable or unlawful.

The court dismissed Petros’ originating summons with costs of RM50,000 payable to Petronas.

Petronas had called on the bank guarantee after Petros refused to pay for gas supplied in August 2024, arguing that Petronas had no valid licence under the Distribution of Gas Ordinance 2016 (DGO 2016) to supply gas in Sarawak.

Subsequently, Petros sought a court declaration that Petronas’ call on the RM7.95 million bank guarantee was unconscionable, null and void.