Home » Sabah PH reps not dropping suit over state’s revenue share
English

Sabah PH reps not dropping suit over state’s revenue share

Twelve Sabah PH elected representatives filed a legal action in the High Court seeking a declaration that the state’s revenue share formula is still applicable in June 2022.

PETALING JAYA: Sabah Pakatan Harapan elected representatives will not be dropping a suit against Putrajaya over the state’s revenue share formula, says their lawyer.


Nelson W Angang said case mention has been set for the end of this month at the High Court, although the actual date of the hearing is not known yet.


“The federal government is still holding discussions to come up with an amicable resolution over the matter. So the plaintiffs (Sabah PH) will not drop this case until a decision is made (by the courts).


“We’ll see whether the court says to proceed or not at the end of the month, but the plaintiffs do not plan to drop this case,” he said, according to Utusan Malaysia.


In June, 12 Sabah PH elected representatives filed a legal action in the High Court seeking a declaration that the state’s revenue share formula was still applicable.


They are also seeking declarations that a review of Putrajaya’s annual grant to Sabah should have been carried out in 1974, and that the 2022 review – jointly announced by the federal and Sabah state governments in April – was unconstitutional.


Among the representatives involved are Sabah PKR chief Christina Liew, Tuaran MP Wilfred Madius Tangau, Sabah DAP chief Frankie Poon, Sabah Amanah chief Lahirul Latigu and Kota Kinabalu MP Chan Foong Hin.


PH is now a part of the federal government and the Hajiji Noor-led Sabah state government.


In his winding-up speech on Budget 2023, Sabah and Sarawak affairs minister and special functions minister Armizan Ali said the revenue share issue should not be debated in the Dewan Rakyat.


Armizan said the issue involved legal matters that had been referred to the courts to decide, expressing concern that debating the matter could be deemed sub judice.

— EDITOR,FMT