Chin, who is also a nominated state assemblyman, said the ruling was disappointing, not because it cast doubt on Sabah’s entitlement, but because it removed the binding timelines set by the High Court last year.
“What the High Court did, and why it mattered, was to impose structure on what had long been an open-ended process,” he said in a statement today.
“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 a conclusion. The stay removes that structure.”
Chin said Putrajaya’s argument that the review was complex was not new, and warned that accepting it now risked indefinite delay.
“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 said.
Last year, the High Court, in a judicial review filed by SLS, ruled that the federal government had breached its constitutional duties by failing to honour Sabah’s 40% share of net revenue for the “lost years” of 1974 to 2021.
The court said that no reviews were conducted until 2022.
However, the Court of Appeal granted a stay, saying Putrajaya would be prejudiced if forced to comply before its appeal is heard, citing potentially serious financial implications for public funds.
Chin said the stay did not prevent the review process from continuing, particularly for current financial years, and urged the government to press on with negotiations rather than pause pending the appeal.
He warned that the real test lies in whether the process moves forward seriously or drifts once again under the cover of legal process.
“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,” he said.