Sabah, Sarawak constitutional rights under scrutiny amid major court dispute

KOTA KINABALU (March 6): Two major legal developments currently unfolding in Malaysia’s courts could reopen fundamental constitutional questions concerning safeguards originally intended for Sabah and Sarawak, according to the Borneo’s Plight in Malaysia Foundation (BoPiMaFo).

Its president, Daniel John Jambun, said the cases involve Sabah’s long-standing financial entitlement under Article 112D of the Federal Constitution and the ongoing dispute over petroleum governance involving Petroliam Nasional Berhad (Petronas) and Petroleum Sarawak Berhad (Petros).

“The two cases arise from different legal contexts but share a deeper constitutional significance.

“They both involve structural safeguards that were intended to protect the fiscal and resource interests of Sabah and Sarawak when Malaysia was formed,” he said in a statement.

Daniel explained that Article 112D of the Federal Constitution provides for the review of the special grant payable to Sabah, based on 40 per cent of the net revenue derived by the Federation from the state.

He noted that the High Court’s recent decision concerning Sabah’s 40 per cent entitlement represents a rare instance where judicial intervention was needed to enforce a constitutional financial safeguard.

“For decades, many of these safeguards were discussed mainly through political negotiations under the framework of the Malaysia Agreement 1963.

“Progress has often been slow, partial, and dependent on shifting political circumstances,” he said.

At the same time, Daniel said the legal questions arising from the dispute between Petronas and Petros could eventually require the Federal Court to examine how federal petroleum legislation interacts with the constitutional position of the Borneo states.

“What is happening now is different.

“For the first time in many years, the courts are being asked to directly interpret and enforce constitutional provisions that lie at the heart of the federal arrangements affecting Borneo,” he said, describing the development as a ‘constitutional moment’.

He added that the issue goes beyond revenue calculations or petroleum contracts, highlighting the broader constitutional balance between the Federation and the Borneo states.

“A federation functions properly only when the safeguards embedded in its constitutional structure are respected and implemented in good faith.

“If those safeguards require judicial compulsion before they are honoured, it signals a deeper imbalance within the federal system,” added Daniel.

He called on the public not to view the cases as isolated disputes, but as part of a broader process scrutinising the constitutional framework governing Borneo’s position within Malaysia.

“At moments such as this, silence would be a mistake.

“The people of Sabah and Sarawak must follow these developments closely and understand their long-term implications.

“The constitutional arrangements that shape the future of Borneo are now being tested in the courts,” he said, adding that the constitutional promises made to Sabah and Sarawak must be respected in substance, not merely acknowledged in principle.