Sabah Sarawak Rights – Australia New Zealand (SSRANZ) condemns the Federal Government’s decision to appeal the recent High Court judgement affirming that both the Federal and Sabah Governments acted unconstitutionally since 1974.
This appeal demonstrates continued bad faith and a refusal to respect the Court’s findings. It shows that Putrajaya is dissatisfied not with the law, but with the judiciary’s willingness to uphold constitutional protections owed to Sabah and Sarawak—reflecting a pattern that has persisted since 1963, when the Federal Government first began refusing to honour the conditions under which Sabah and Sarawak entered Malaysia.
SSRANZ also notes a recent development: the Federal Government has filed a later version of its Notice of Appeal, which materially broadens the scope of the appeal. According to legal analysis by former SLS President Roger Chin, this later notice introduces two key changes:
1. Ground 1 now refers to the High Court’s direction on the “manner and/or process” of conducting the Article 112D review, effectively challenging the 90-day timetable for a lawful review and the broader 180-day framework designed to prevent further delay.
2. A disclaimer stating that the Government is not appealing the 40% formula or the need for a review. While this may appear reassuring, it does not alter the substance of the appeal: the Federal Government continues to challenge the constitutional breach findings, the declaration that no lawful review occurred after 1973, the invalidity of the 2022–2025 Gazette Orders, the orders for constitutional damages, and the requirement to account for sums owed.
Taken together, these additions leave the 40% formula intact in theory while undermining the mechanisms that give it practical effect. The appeal continues to target the operative findings that explain the Lost Years and the obligation for lawful, time-bound compliance.
This significant development underscores that the Federal Government’s appeal remains broad, politically motivated, and designed to weaken Sabah and Sarawak’s constitutional rights, despite public appearances to the contrary.
Why The Appeal Lacks Legal Merit
SSRANZ assesses the Federal Government’s appeal as legally baseless and politically motivated:
• It identifies no error of law or fact in the High Court’s reasoning.
• The Court’s conclusions—on the absence of any lawful review after 1973, the unconstitutionality of the 2022–2025 Gazette Orders, and breaches of constitutional duties—are firmly grounded in evidence and constitutional text.
• The appeal is engineered to maintain Sabah’s 40% entitlement on paper while destroying every mechanism that allows it to be enforced in practice.
The political intent is unmistakable: to preserve Malaya’s control over Sabah, maintain structural underdevelopment, and reinforce decades-long dependency. This confirms the widespread perception that Sabah and Sarawak—though understood by their peoples in 1963 to be equal partners based on UK and Malayan public assurances—have instead been treated as Malayan colonies.
Breach Of Public Assurance
The Notice of Appeal directly contradicts the public assurances given by the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) and Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC) on 11 November 2025, which claimed that no substantive appeal would be filed.
In reality, the Notice of Appeal:
• challenges the finding that no lawful review occurred after 1973;
• seeks to overturn the declarations that the 2022, 2023, and 2025 Gazette Orders were unconstitutional;
• disputes the findings of constitutional breaches by both Federal and Sabah Governments;
• contests the orders for accounting, repayment, and constitutional damages.
This is not a technical appeal—it is an attempt to preserve nearly five decades of unconstitutional deprivation while pretending to accept the judgement.
The Critical Breach: The Mandatory 1973 Ma63 / IGC Review
SSRANZ emphasises that the Federal Government evaded the mandatory 1973 MA63/IGC 10-year review, a safeguard explicitly negotiated in 1963 to protect Sabah and Sarawak’s autonomy.
This review was not the same as the post-1974 five-year fiscal review under Article 112D. The 1973 review was intended to examine:
• autonomy and decentralisation,
• revenue rights,
• civil service guarantees,
• immigration powers,
• control over land and natural resources,
• constitutional safeguards and amendment procedures.
Putrajaya’s total refusal to conduct the review demonstrates bad faith from the outset and ensured that MA63 safeguards were never monitored, honoured, or enforced.
A Systemic Pattern Of Breach That Invalidates MA63
The High Court’s findings—together with historical records—demonstrate a systemic pattern of violations by the Federal Government since 1963, including:
• the unconstitutional downgrading of Sabah and Sarawak’s status in 1974;
• centralisation of powers via unilateral constitutional amendments;
• long-term erosion of fiscal, political, and administrative autonomy;
• Illegal seizure of Sabah Sarawak petroleum assets
• total failure to conduct the mandatory 1973 MA63/IGC review;
• failure to state in the Federal Constitution that Malaysia was formed pursuant to MA63—an omission that undermines the federation’s legitimacy.
These are not isolated acts but a continuous 61-year chain of illegality.
SSRANZ Reaffirms Its Position
1. MA63 was void ab initio, because the transfer of sovereignty in 1963 occurred:
• Sabah and Sarawak were colonies not sovereign states with legal capacity to enter into treaties;
• without genuine self-determination;
• in violation of UNGA Resolutions 1514 and 1541;
• through collusion between the UK and Malaya;
• with Malaya acting as an external power interfering in the decolonisation of North Borneo and Sarawak, contrary to the Manila Accord and international law.
2. Even if MA63 were valid, it has been terminated by decades of material breaches—beginning with the evaded 1973 review, continuing with the 1974 status downgrade, and reinforced by ongoing constitutional violations.
Therefore, MA63 no longer provides any lawful basis for Malaya’s continued control or domination over Sabah and Sarawak.
Local Remedies Exhausted — International Remedies Now Required
The doctrine of exhaustion of local remedies is fully satisfied. The High Court has delivered its findings, the breaches are documented, and the Federal Government refuses compliance.
As original signatories of MA63, Sabah and Sarawak possess independent standing to seek international remedies, including:
• the International Court of Justice (ICJ);
• the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA);
• the UN Decolonisation Committee (C-24);
• advisory opinions from the UN General Assembly or ITLOS;
• invocation of self-determination rights under international law.
If the Federal Government objects on the basis that Sabah and Sarawak lack locus standi, such an objection immediately triggers the void ab initio question—because if Sabah and Sarawak are not recognised as treaty parties, then MA63 could never have been validly concluded.
Either way, international adjudication becomes unavoidable.
Conclusion
The Federal Government’s appeal is not an act of good-faith legal process—it is the continuation of a 61-year pattern of violations that has eroded MA63 beyond repair.
For these reasons, SSRANZ affirms that the governments of Sabah and Sarawak are now legally entitled—and indeed obligated—to refer the matter to competent international adjudicatory bodies for determination of MA63’s validity, its breaches, and the remedies and the respective rights of the signatory territories. This is not a political option but a legal necessity arising directly from the Federal Government’s breaches.
Sabah and Sarawak must now place MA63 before competent international adjudicators to determine its validity,
SSRANZ stands ready to support all lawful steps required to restore the rights, dignity, and sovereignty of the Borneo territories.
Robert Pei
President
Sabah Sarawak Rights – Australia New Zealand (SSRANZ)
15 November 2025
Endorsed by:
Voon Lee Shan
President, Parti Bumi Kenyalang
