Speaking outside Parliament, Hassan said criticism centred on who authorised the court action missed the point as to why the legal reference was necessary in the first place.
“The court can decide, but it cannot solve (the dispute). Its role here is to establish which legal framework applies so that negotiations can proceed on a stable footing.”
Several East Malaysian leaders had questioned whether Petronas acted with federal approval.
GPS MPs Willie Mongin and Doris Sophia Brodie both asked in Parliament whether the federal government had consented to the legal move. Meanwhile, opinion writers have continued to argue that Sarawak’s Oil Mining Ordinance 1958 remains valid despite the Petroleum Development Act 1974 (PDA).
Hassan said the existence of competing legal interpretations was precisely why court clarification was unavoidable.
“As long as one side relies on the PDA and the other on state ordinances, talks will go in circles. You cannot negotiate meaningfully if you do not agree on the rule book.”
He stressed that supporting the court reference did not mean treating litigation as the solution.
“There is no win-win outcome in court. If Petronas succeeds, Sarawak may remain unhappy and respond politically. If Sarawak succeeds, Petronas suffers and Malaysia weakens a strategic national asset.”
That was why the legal process had to be understood as a means to an end, not the end itself, he said.
Hassan also rejected claims that seeking judicial clarification contradicted ongoing political discussions following the declaration on May 21 last year between Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim and Sarawak premier Abang Johari Openg.
“Clarification does not stop negotiation. It allows negotiation to restart on firmer ground,” he said.
Hassan said turning the court reference into a political scandal risked derailing that purpose.
“Questioning who authorised the action only politicises a technical step meant to unblock discussions,” he said.
Hassan added that Petronas, as a legal entity, was entitled to seek clarity on its obligations, and that doing so should not be portrayed as arrogance or bad faith.
“This is about understanding the legal position before deciding the political and commercial settlement.
“Without that clarity, we are just arguing in the dark,” he said.
Earlier this month, Petronas filed a motion in the Federal Court to seek clarity on the applicable regulatory framework governing its operations in Sarawak to ensure that its operations in the state complied with applicable laws and governance practices.
The national oil company said the suit was not meant to challenge Sarawak’s development aspirations or hinder Petroleum Sarawak Bhd, the state’s sole gas aggregator, but to obtain the Federal Court’s definitive determination on the legal position applicable to the petroleum sector in the state.