NOVEMBER 12 — Yesterday I wrote that the Attorney General (AG) must discharge his constitutional duties with candour, while ensuring that every piece of advice given is consistent with the provisions of the Federal Constitution, the supreme law of the land.

He must discharge his duties without fear or favour as well.

The AG must also ensure that all organs of the government respect and abide by the provisions of the Federal Constitution.

So, kudos to the AG for being candid in his advice to the Cabinet with regards to Sabah’s constitutional entitlement to 40 per cent of federal revenue collected from the state.

Article 112C of the Federal Constitution clearly states that the States of Sabah and Sarawak are entitled to, in respect of each financial year, the grants specified in Part IV of the Tenth Schedule.

Section 2(1) of Part IV of the Tenth Schedule states that Sabah is entitled to 40 per cent of federal revenue collected from the state.

The Kota Kinabalu High Court’s decision on Sabah’s entitlement is therefore correct. There is no error on this.

What is there to appeal when there is no error?

An appeal is to correct an error or errors of law or fact, or both.

That is why the federal government will appeal against what it contends as the erroneous part of the High Court’s decision — that is, both the federal and Sabah governments had “abused their powers and breached constitutional duties” dating back to 1974, and describing the 2021 Special Grant review as “unlawful, irrational, procedurally flawed and disproportionate”.

As I also wrote, judges are not infallible. Appeal is a corrective procedure that can correct errors of law or fact, or both, made by judges.

So, kudos too to the prime minister and the Cabinet for following the advice of the AG.

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.