Kota Kinabalu: Sabah Law Society (SLS) stressed the importance of ensuring that the High Court–directed process under Article 112D of the Federal Constitution, concerning Sabah’s constitutional entitlement to 40 per cent of net revenue derived from the State, is undertaken with urgency, seriousness and good faith as envisaged by the judgment.
SLS President Datuk Mohamed Nazim Maduarin said in a statement, Thursday, said it must be carried out in a manner that reflects its constitutional character and upholds the intent of the court’s decision.
Advertisement
“The direction engages the Constitution at its highest level and carries clear legal consequences. Compliance with the court’s order requires more than the formal initiation of a process.
“It requires a genuine and substantive review, conducted in accordance with the purpose and timelines articulated by the Court.
“A review under Article 112D is not satisfied by preliminary or episodic engagement. The constitutional duty recognised by the judgment envisages serious, sustained, and purposeful engagement between the Federal and Sabah State Governments, directed towards achieving an outcome that gives practical effect to the Constitution.
“A judgment of the High Court is binding. Compliance with it is not discretionary, nor is it contingent on political preference or convenience.
“The timelines stipulated by the court form an integral part of the constitutional process and are inseparable from the administration of justice.
“The court has prescribed a defined timeframe for the completion of this review, and the process has now entered a stage where substantive engagement is no longer optional but constitutionally required,” said Mohamed Nazim.
He said the Court’s direction signals a point at which history, contribution, and constitutional obligation are no longer abstract, but demand legal recognition.
“That obligation must now be discharged fully and effectively, through the Constitution and the law.
“Any approach that falls short of timely and substantive engagement would risk undermining both the judgment itself and the constitutional process the Court has directed to be undertaken.
“SLS emphasises that public confidence in the rule of law depends on the faithful, timely, and substantive observance of court orders, particularly where important constitutional rights and the welfare of an entire state and its people are concerned,” he said.
