Sabah goes to the polls on Nov 29. In this state election, two issues dominate: the 40% revenue entitlement to the state, which a Kota Kinabalu High Court has declared is constitutional, and; the politicians featured in incriminating videos implicating them in bribery who are standing for elections.

The federal government is appealing the KK court’s decision, however, clarifying that it is not appealing the 40% revenue entitlement as a constitutional requirement but some parts of the judgement.

Among other things, “the AGC is appealing against the court’s findings and declaration that Putrajaya and the Sabah government’s use of powers under Article 112D amounted to an abuse of power and a breach of constitutional duties. It is also appealing against the court ruling that found no evidence of an existing ongoing review between the two parties.” (AGC files appeal against parts of Sabah ruling, Malaysiakini, Nov 14, 2025)

It is generally accepted that the AGC would appeal a judgment it feels is appealable. When the judgement involves a constitutional point, there is no doubt that the AGC would appeal until the case reaches the Federal Court, which gives the final and definitive interpretations on constitutional issues, which then becomes binding.

With the appeal, however, the legal and constitutional processes may take a lengthy period of time before the issue is resolved.

Former Sabah Law Society president Roger Chin explains that with the appeal, there would be no change to the status quo. “In effect, the Notice of Appeal strikes at the core of the High Court’s decision. Although it does not challenge the 40 percent formula itself, it challenges every operative finding that gives the formula real effect.

“If the federal government succeeds, the 40 percent entitlement will remain law in theory but will be deprived of practical force – exactly the position Sabah has faced for decades.” (AGC files appeal against parts of Sabah ruling, Malaysiakini, Nov 14, 2025)

When the judgement was first made, Sabahans were hyped up over the constitutional legitimacy of their claim and expectations were high that the Sabah government would get that money without trouble.

Their leaders sought that the federal government would not appeal for fear that a disappointed electorate might adversely affect the outcome of the state elections.

With the appeal, candidates standing for election now have to manage the expectations of their voters and compete for voters who want immediate implementation of the ruling and others, who realise that with the appeal they may have to settle for compromises.

The first category of voters may go for Sabah for Sabahans candidates and the rest for local leaders from national parties and stomach being dictated by “a party president across the sea”, as Upko president Ewon Benedick puts it. Ewon also warned that Sabahans will lose their leverage if they vote for the latter candidates.

Not only will they lose their leverage but they will lose the state government’s accountability to the people because “a party president across the sea” is part of an appointed government without the mandate of the people. The people have seen evidences of its lack of public accountability since the current government was appointed in 2022.

If Sabahans choose leaders from national parties, it would be an endorsement of the current state-federal set-up, and the lack of public accountability that follows will be worse than what it is now.

Candidates in the state elections have a challenging task to honestly communicate the implications of the KK court’s ruling and the appeal, and the current political context to the people.

Whether Sabahans will respond to an honest appraisal of the political situation or maintain the status quo of parties indebted to federal parties is what the rest of Malaysia will be watching.

The choice is not difficult; it is obvious. Sabahans should not make an emotional choice over the 40% constitutional entitlement. Sabahans should, instead, rationally consider the options presented by the candidates, especially from Sabah parties, and choose wisely. It will work to their advantage in the long term.

Tied up with preferring Sabah parties’ candidates to local leaders of national parties is the issue of clean candidates.

Several leaders in the caretaker state government, including its Chief Minister Hajiji Noor, are implicated in bribery scandal videos released by whistleblower Albert Tei. Only two have been charged while the rest escaped the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission’s (MACC) scrutiny. Hajiji, however, has been cleared by the MACC.

Suspicions linger as to why only two were charged while the big fishes got away. Those not charged have denied any wrongdoing.

Nevertheless, many of the implicated leaders, including Hajiji, who is Gabungan Rakyat Sabah (GRS) chairman, caretaker deputy chief minister I and STAR president Jeffrey Kitingan and caretaker deputy chief minister II Dr Joachim Gunsalam, who is the acting president of Parti Bersatu Sabah, caretaker state finance minister Masidi Manjun and, Arifin Arif, the son-in-law of Sabah governor Musa Aman, are standing for election.

Will Sabah voters vote for these candidates who are now corruption-tainted even if not investigated?

Sabah voters need to bear in mind that it wasn’t the lack of the 40% that has kept the state lagging behind as one of the poorest states in Malaysia. It is their leaders who didn’t push the state forward. If corrupt or corruption-tainted leaders are reelected, the voters are as guilty as such leaders for putting them back in power.

Worse still, even with the 40% revenue entitlement, Sabah may not progress led by such leaders.

In the Nov 29 election, Sabahans have a chance to choose a new lineup of clean leaders from Sabah parties for a better future and break away from the status quo. But will they? We will know in two weeks!