Kota Kinabalu: The Sabah Action Body Advocating Rights (Sabar) board of directors has filed an application to intervene in a Federal Court petition brought by the Sarawak Government against the Federal Government and Petroliam Nasional Berhad (Petronas), seeking clarity on the continued validity of key federal laws governing offshore resources.
Sabar’s board of directors said its application to act as an intervener is limited specifically to issues concerning the Continental Shelf Act 1966 (CSA) and the Petroleum Mining Act 1966 (PMA) as they apply to Sabah following the annulment of the 1969 Emergency by the Dewan Rakyat in 2011.
Advertisement
X500px(H).jpg)
The group noted that there are overlapping legal questions between its originating summons (OS), filed in the High Court in 2023 concerning Sabah, and the Sarawak Government’s petition filed in 2026, with both cases involving the CSA and PMA.
As such, Sabar argued it would be in the interest of judicial efficiency for both matters to be heard together in the Federal Court, allowing for a comprehensive determination while saving judicial time and resources.
However, Sabar clarified that its intervention would not affect other aspects of its Sabah-based OS, particularly those concerning the Territorial Sea Act 2012 (TSA), which is not part of the Sarawak petition.
Similarly, it stressed that its application does not touch on the validity of the Petroleum Development Act 1974 (PDA), which is cited in the Sarawak case but not in Sabar’s OS, nor does it affect Petronas’ position in the proceedings.
Sabar is challenging the applicability of the CSA and PMA in Sabah on the basis that the North Borneo (Alteration of Boundaries) Order in Council 1954 had already extended Sabah’s boundaries to include the continental shelf.
According to the order, Sabah’s boundaries were expanded to cover “the area of the continental shelf being the seabed and its subsoil which lies beneath the high seas contiguous to the territorial waters of North Borneo”.
This extension effectively placed Sabah’s maritime boundary at approximately 200 nautical miles from the baseline, encompassing the seabed and subsoil resources of the continental shelf.
Sabar pointed out that a similar 1954 Order in Council exists for Sarawak, reinforcing the relevance of the issue to both states.
The group further highlighted differences in state-level oil legislation, noting that Sarawak has the Sarawak Oil Mining Ordinance 1958, enacted after oil was discovered there, while Sabah instead has the Petroleum Ordinance 1960.
It said the CSA and PMA were extended to Sabah and Sarawak through the 1969 Emergency Ordinance and remained in force until the emergency was annulled in 2011.
One of the central legal questions before the Federal Court, both in Sabar’s OS and the Sarawak petition, is whether these two federal laws remain valid in Sabah following the end of the emergency.
Sabar expressed hope that the apex court would resolve the matter expeditiously, emphasising that clarity on the issue is crucial for the long-term interests of both Sabah and Sarawak.
“The board of Sabar is hopeful that the Federal Court will quickly resolve the question for the benefit of the people of Sabah and Sarawak so that we can build a stronger Malaysia,” it said.
