The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in 2024 that the federal and Ontario governments had breached the 1850 Robinson Huron agreement. The similar but separate Robinson Superior case remains unsettled. Image Source: Composite illustration

In the Sabah case, a group of individuals claiming descent from the defunct Sulu Sultanate are seeking nearly $15 billion from Malaysia over land first ceded to the British Empire in 1878. It has become one of the largest and most controversial arbitration cases in recent history, with the dispute playing out in European courts far from Southeast Asia.

In Canada, several First Nations are also seeking to enforce terms from a colonial treaty worth billions. Much like the continued cession money paid by the British and Malaysia up till 2013 agreed upon between the British North Borneo Company and the Sulu Sultanate in 1878, in Ontario, the Robinson treaties also guaranteed payment to the First Nations that once owned land ceded to a colonial power. The treaties encompass two agreements: the Robinson Huron and Robinson Superior treaties, each involving the First Nations inhabiting the regions around Lake Huron and Lake Superior respectively.

Payments were last raised to $4 per person in 1874, and have not increased in over 150 years despite the extensive economic exploitation of the territory through mining, logging, and energy development and a contractual promise to increase the payments. Lake Huron and Lake Superior First Nations launched separate lawsuits arguing that the Crown had failed its legal and moral obligation to revisit the annuity.

The contexts and credibility of the Sabah and Robinson cases differ significantly, yet their re-emergence at a similar time highlights a broader legal moment worth examining. Both stem from 19th-century colonial-era treaties, both involve questions of compensation for land and claims of broken promises, and both are being tested through modern legal systems with enormous financial implications.

Sabah and Robinson cases differ significantly, yet their re-emergence at a similar time highlights a broader legal moment worth examining.

As courts across the world grapple with how—or whether—to translate historical disputes into present-day remedies, these two cases offer a revealing lens into how different approaches to the past can play out in the present.

The Robinson Treaties Case: A Modern Lawsuit with Clear Ties to Historical Claimants

After years of litigation, the First Nations achieved a significant legal victory when the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in 2024 that the Crown has a legal duty to revisit the treaty annuity payments of the Robinson Huron Treaty in line with the economic value derived from the land. The case is led by recognized Anishinaabe First Nations with direct lineage to the original Robinson Treaties signatories.

These First Nations are represented by the Robinson Huron Treaty Litigation Fund, which acts as the legal claimant body. Additionally, leadership and oversight involve the Robinson Huron Treaty Leadership Council, comprised of Chiefs from the 21 participating First Nations, and the Office of Mizhinawe, an independent institution responsible for community engagement and ensuring that the settlement process reflects the needs and priorities of the treaty communities.

The settlement funds are intended to benefit these communities collectively, supporting their development and growth. While specific spending priorities have not been formally detailed in public documents, ongoing community consultations aim to guide how the funds will be used to improve the wellbeing and economic prospects of treaty members.

The settlement funds are intended to benefit these communities collectively, supporting their development and growth.

Claimed Sulu Heirs vs. Sulu Province and Sabah

While the Robinson cases have remained firmly grounded in the collective needs of a living Indigenous population, the Sulu arbitration is more distant to the people of Sulu and Sabah. Indeed, the Sulu claimants are a group of private individuals whose ancestral link to the Sultanate is contested—not least by members of the Sulu royal lineage, and who do not represent any formal governing body in the Philippines.

The Sulu province—one of the poorest in the country—also has no institutional involvement in the case, and there is no concrete plan for how the $15 billion claim would benefit its people. Sabah, for its part, joined Malaysia in 1963 after a UN-backed review of public opinion in North Borneo.

There have been no indications on how the purported Sulu heirs would seek to benefit the Sabahan population—seizing $15 billion from the coffers of Malaysia’s treasury is unlikely to support the region’s development. In fact, the Sabah arbitration appears more to be steered by commercial interests. Litigation funder Therium has bankrolled the Sulu claim in exchange for a share of any eventual payout.

There have been no indications on how the purported Sulu heirs would seek to benefit the Sabahan population.

Critics contend that the case has shifted from a genuine pursuit of justice to a profit-driven enterprise. In past UK court rulings involving Therium-backed litigation, judges have noted that the funder often stands to gain more than the plaintiffs themselves—effectively recognizing Therium as a major, if not equal, party to the dispute. This raises a critical question: who is truly driving the Sulu arbitration—private Filipino citizens seeking redress, or British litigation funders pursuing financial returns?

This raises a critical question: who is truly driving the Sulu arbitration—private Filipino citizens seeking redress, or British litigation funders pursuing financial returns?

Restitution or Investment Strategy?

As legal systems increasingly become the arena for settling colonial-era grievances, the Robinson Huron case presents a notably different approach to addressing historical disputes—one shaped by community leadership, representation and a commitment to long-term restitution.

The Sabah case, meanwhile, brings into focus more complex questions about the evolving role of litigation finance in historical justice claims. When substantial legal actions are initiated by private parties, supported by commercial funders, and removed from the broader communities in whose name they are brought, it raises important considerations: can such efforts deliver meaningful accountability—or do they risk turning historical questions into financial instruments?

REFERENCES

Lamothe, J. (2023, June 19). Robinson Huron Nations reach $10 B settlement with feds, province. SN News Watch. https://www.snnewswatch.com/

Government of Canada, Crown–Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada. (2023, June 17). Robinson Huron Treaty leadership, Ontario and Canada announce proposed settlement and next steps in treaty annuities court case. Government of Canada. https://www.canada.ca/

Hopkin, J. (2024, April 4). $10 B Robinson Huron Treaty settlement paid in full — and accruing $1.3 M in daily interest. The Trillium. https://www.thetrillium.ca/

Travers Smith LLP. (2022). ECU v HSBC: Costs and funder liability. https://www.traverssmith.com/