Daily Express Subscriber
Sign in to your account.

IN any society governed by law, there must come a point where disagreement ends and duty begins. That point is reached when a court delivers its judgment. Not because courts are perfect, but because without finality, the law cannot function.

This principle takes on particular gravity when a court issues an order of mandamus. Mandamus is not a technical flourish or a symbolic rebuke. It is one of the strongest tools available to a court, used only when the law has been breached through inaction and when continued delay has itself become unlawful.

In simple terms, mandamus is a court order that compels a public authority to perform a legal duty that the law already requires it to perform. The court does not invent the duty. It confirms that the duty exists, that it has not been fulfilled, and that the time for discretion has passed.

When mandamus is issued, the court is saying something very clear - this is no longer a matter for discussion or negotiation; the law must now be obeyed.

What the Court Decided

In the recent judgment concerning Sabah’s constitutional entitlements, the High Court did not merely interpret historical documents or express concern over past conduct. It made definitive findings of constitutional breach.

The court held that the Federal Government had failed to comply with its constitutional obligations under the Federal Constitution, particularly the duty to conduct periodic constitutional reviews and to properly give effect to Sabah’s 40% special grant entitlement.

It found that the failure to conduct the required review from 1974 onwards was not a minor oversight or administrative delay, but a sustained breach of constitutional duty.

The court further declared the legal meaning of the 40% entitlement and affirmed that this entitlement remained due and payable. 

It rejected the notion that decades of inaction could extinguish a constitutional obligation. In doing so, the court made clear that constitutional duties do not fade with time, nor can they be neutralised by delay.

Having reached these conclusions, the court turned to remedies. Declarations alone were insufficient. The breach was ongoing. Action was required.

What the Mandamus Ordered

The court therefore issued an order of mandamus.

That mandamus directs the Federal Government to carry out the constitutional review required by Article 112D of the Federal Constitution together with the State Government of Sabah. Importantly, it does not leave this obligation open-ended. The court imposed specific timeframes within which the review must be conducted and within which agreement must be reached.

The purpose of the review is not abstract or academic. It is to give effect to Sabah’s constitutional entitlement by properly determining and implementing the 40% special grant in accordance with the Constitution. The court further ordered that the entitlement must be paid, or otherwise accounted for, as required by law following the review.

In plain language, the mandamus compels the authorities to act - to sit down, conduct the review the Constitution has long required, complete it within defined periods, and implement the outcome. The imposition of deadlines reflects the court’s finding that delay has already caused decades of constitutional non-compliance.

This is precisely what mandamus is designed to do. It turns constitutional obligation into enforceable action.

Why Compliance Is Not Optional

Once a judgment containing mandamus is delivered, compliance is mandatory. Agreement is irrelevant. Inconvenience does not matter. Political difficulty is not an excuse.

A court judgment is not a proposal. It is the authoritative determination of legal rights and duties. If compliance were optional, courts would cease to be courts, and constitutional rights would exist only in theory.

Failure to comply with mandamus is therefore not a technical lapse. It is defiance of judicial authority and rejection of the constitutional order. It converts a constitutional breach into a constitutional crisis.

What Non-Compliance Means for the Public

For ordinary people, the implications are profound.

Courts are where citizens turn when power fails them, when bureaucracy stalls, and when rights are ignored. If a government can disregard a court’s command, the public learns a devastating lesson - that even after winning in court, justice may not be delivered.

That belief corrodes trust. People stop relying on lawful remedies. Rights begin to feel theoretical. Disputes drift away from institutions and toward pressure, confrontation, or raw power.

No society can remain stable when its people no longer believe that court orders matter.

What It Means for the Rule of Law

The rule of law does not exist because a country has courts or a constitution. It exists only when judicial decisions are obeyed.

Non-compliance with mandamus strikes at the core of that principle. Courts do not command armies. Their authority rests entirely on acceptance. When their orders are ignored, the balance between the branches of government is broken, and the executive is placed above the law.

That creates a dangerous precedent. Court orders become negotiable. Legal duties become optional. Constitutional guarantees lose force.

At that point, the law no longer governs power. Power governs the law.

What It Means to the World

The world pays close attention to how a country treats its courts.

Foreign governments, investors, international institutions, and civil society organisations assess not only whether laws exist, but whether court judgments are enforced — especially judgments that bind the state itself.

Non-compliance undermines legal certainty, raises doubts about judicial independence, and signals political risk. It tells the world that the rule of law may give way when it becomes inconvenient.

No serious investor or international partner is reassured by laws on paper alone. Confidence depends on whether those laws are honoured in practice.

The Legal Consequences of Non-Compliance

Beyond principle and perception, non-compliance carries concrete legal consequences. 

Failure to comply with mandamus exposes the responsible authorities, and in appropriate cases individuals, to contempt of court proceedings. Contempt is not symbolic. It exists to protect the authority of the court and can result in fines, coercive orders, and in extreme cases personal sanctions.

Beyond contempt and coercive orders, continued non-compliance carries another serious consequence - exposure to constitutional damages. Where a court has found a breach of constitutional duty and has issued mandamus to compel performance, persistent failure to comply may justify an assessment of damages to vindicate the Constitution itself.

Such damages are not punitive. They are awarded to recognise the real harm caused by prolonged illegality, to affirm that constitutional obligations are not cost-free, and to deter future disregard of court orders. Delay, in these circumstances, does not merely erode trust; it creates tangible legal and financial liability borne by the public purse.

Persistent non-compliance also invites deeper judicial intervention. Courts may impose stricter deadlines, supervisory orders, or further coercive relief. Resistance to compliance often results in more, not less, judicial oversight.

Some harm, however, cannot be undone. Years of delay translate into lost opportunities, unmet needs, and damage that no later payment can fully repair. Law delayed is not neutral. It is often law denied.

A Judgment That Defines the System

This judgment draws a clear line. It declares the law, identifies breach, and commands action. What follows will define more than the outcome of a single case. It will define whether constitutional government remains meaningful.

Mandamus exists to ensure that constitutional duties are not defeated by inertia. It is the law’s insistence that obligations be fulfilled, not merely acknowledged.

When a court has spoken in these terms, there is only one lawful response - compliance.

Anything less is not merely unlawful. It is incompatible with the rule of law itself.

The views expressed here are the views of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of the Daily Express. If you have something to share, write to us at: Forum@dailyexpress.com.my