.png)
KOTA KINABALU – The Sabah bar has suggested that it was not considered sub judice to debate certain aspects of Sabah’s rights in the Dewan Rakyat although the matter was being disputed in court.
This comes after Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department (Sabah and Sarawak Affairs and Special Functions) Datuk Armizan Mohd Ali claimed that the Sabah royalty issue could not be discussed in Parliament due to the court proceedings.
Speaking to The Vibes, the Sabah Law Society said Armizan’s reasons for refusing to speak in Parliament on the issue due to the ongoing cases were inaccurate.
Its president Roger Chin said this was because the 40% revenue entitlement sought by the state was not under judicial review.
“The subject is too broad. If the matter was considered to be sub judice, it has to be directly relating to the case, which is not only about the 40% (in royalties).
“Parliament cannot (debate the matter) if what is being discussed is the same as the actual case. So, we need to read the claims (in the suits) and ask whether what is being discussed is the same issue,” he said when contacted today.
In the Dewan Rakyat earlier this week, Armizan refused to speak on Articles 112C and 112D of the federal constitution, citing the Standing Orders that bar MPs from engaging in matters undergoing court proceedings.
In June last year, Pakatan Harapan (PH) representatives in Sabah named the federal and state governments as defendants in an originating summons to seek a court declaration on the state’s special grants and revenue assignments.
At a press conference today, Sabah PH chairman Datuk Christina Liew said the legal action is supported by six MPs and seven assemblymen.
The group of lawmakers sought a declaration from the court that Article 112C and Section 2(1) of Part IV of the 10th Schedule of the federal constitution still applies and is enforceable.
They also sought a declaration that the review of the grants should have been performed in 1974 and in subsequent decades, while a review in 2022 pursuant to Section 112D of the federal constitution is unconstitutional.
The elected representatives also seek a court order to compel the federal government to reveal the revenue collected from the state to correctly calculate the 40% entitlement.
In the Dewan Rakyat earlier this week, a war of words broke out between Armizan and an MP from the ruling bloc when the special grant issue was raised during the minister’s budget winding-up speech.
Upko’s Datuk Seri Wilfred Madius Tangau questioned Armizan on whether the 40% in royalties was still applicable given reports that Sabah’s constitutional entitlement had been invalidated in the 70s.
Tangau also argued that the special grant and the 40% revenue entitlement are two separate matters although Armizan insisted that both were the same issue.
Responding to a question from Datuk Jonathan Yasin (Ranau-Gagasan) on Monday, Armizan said the Standing Orders do not allow court cases from being discussed in the Dewan Rakyat.
He said his refusal to debate the matter was not intended to betray Sabah of its rights, but to observe rules against MPs talking about ongoing court cases.
Sabah PH counsel Nelson Angang said the law on sub judice was very clear, but it is up to the judge to determine the matter as the originating summons was not entirely about the 40% in royalties.
“Our court system no longer uses juries. It is decided by a judge by way of trials. So, the concern of witnesses and jurors being influenced is not (an issue).
“Judges cannot say they are easily influenced because they know the law and whatever decision they make will be based on evidence,” said Nelson. – The Vibes, March 15, 2023
