Kuala lumpur: The federal government's decision to appeal specific points in the Kota Kinabalu High Court's judgment concerning Sabah's entitlement to 40 percent of revenue is not unusual, several lawyers have stated.
According to BERNAMA News Agency, lawyer Muhammad Akram Abdul Aziz noted that parties involved can appeal the legal findings or ratio decidendi that hold broader implications, even if the overall decision is not in dispute. He emphasized that appeals are typically filed against substantive decisions, but courts have the discretion to allow appeals when the grounds could lead to misinterpretation of the law, affect public policy, or impact future cases. Correcting legal findings through an appeal ensures that correct constitutional principles are applied.
Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim informed Parliament that the appeal was filed after identifying errors in the judgment's grounds, which were perceived to be beyond the court's jurisdiction. Anwar, backed by advice from the Attorney General's Chambers, highlighted that the judgment's grounds exceeded the issues permitted by law and were not based on relevant constitutional and statutory principles.
Muhammad Akram explained that such findings could create a binding precedent for lower courts, affect the constitutional relationship between the federation and the state, and cause confusion in interpreting Article 112D of the Federal Constitution in the future. Lawyer Salim Bashir echoed this sentiment, stating that it is common for parties, including the federal government, to appeal parts of a decision that are appealable under the Courts of Judicature Act 1964. He added that the federal government's decision not to appeal the special grant itself demonstrates respect for the Federal Constitution and the Malaysia Agreement 1963.
Salim Bashir further noted that the government will appeal issues within the judgment's grounds that are misleading, suggesting that previous governments violated constitutional obligations. These include claims that post-2021 reviews were unlawful and procedurally improper. Without an appeal, these points would remain uncontested legal records.
Lawyer Putera Muhammad Nor Hashim remarked that the government's decision to appeal only the judgment's grounds, not the full decision, indicates agreement with the 40 percent special grant to Sabah. He posited that the appeal aims to prevent inconsistent interpretations of the law.
On October 17, the Kota Kinabalu High Court ruled that the federal government had unlawfully exceeded its constitutional powers by not honoring Sabah's right to the revenue share from 1974 to 2021. In a statement on November 11, the Attorney General's Chambers confirmed the Special Cabinet Meeting's decision not to appeal the High Court decision on the Sabah special grant, but to address defects in the judgment's grounds regarding alleged abuses of power since 1974.