The Historical Basis of the Claim

The dispute stems from an 1878 agreement between the Sultan of Sulu and European representatives of the British North Borneo Company. In this agreement, the Sultan allegedly transferred rights over what is now Sabah to the company.

When Malaysia was formed in 1963, Sabah chose to join the new federation via a referendum overseen by the United Nations. This act solidified Sabah’s status as an integral part of Malaysia, affirming its sovereignty under international law.

Malaysia continued to pay the Sulu heirs a small annual sum as a symbolic gesture of goodwill. These payments were halted in 2013 after the Lahad Datu incident, where armed individuals claiming allegiance to the Sultan of Sulu invaded Sabah, leading to violent clashes and loss of lives.

No Legal Basis Under International Law

Despite these historical complexities, the Sulu claim collapses under the scrutiny of modern international law. Key principles of sovereignty, territorial integrity, and self-determination render the claim void.

The inclusion of Sabah in Malaysia was legally established through the 1963 referendum, which adhered to international norms. This act, conducted under the oversight of the United Nations, overrides any pre-existing agreements from the colonial era, including the 1878 arrangement.

The doctrine of State Succession plays here: when Malaysia inherited sovereignty over Sabah from British colonial authorities, it extinguished any historical claims by non-state actors, including the Sultanate of Sulu. The Sulu heirs no longer have standing to assert territorial or monetary claims against a sovereign state like Malaysia.

There are also flaws in the international arbitration: the heirs’ success in obtaining a $14.92 billion arbitration award in Europe has been met with widespread criticism and legal challenges. Malaysia has argued that the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction and that the proceedings violated Malaysia’s sovereign rights. Most international law experts agree, pointing out that private arbitration cannot adjudicate sovereignty issues or override established principles of state sovereignty.

Under international law, the Sulu heirs’ claim against Malaysia has no realistic prospect of success. Sabah’s status as part of Malaysia is firmly established and cannot be undone by historical grievances or opportunistic arbitration. While the plight of the Sulu descendants deserves attention, pursuing baseless legal claims is not the answer.

Mismanagement and the Sulu Heirs’ Plight

While the Sulu heirs continue to pursue their claims, their efforts have done little to improve their living conditions. Most descendants remain impoverished, raising questions about the real motives and beneficiaries of these legal battles. The astronomical sums sought by their legal representatives—billions of dollars—have only served to enrich lawyers and intermediaries while leaving the Sulu communities destitute.

Furthermore, the aggressive pursuit of such claims may have caused more harm than good, exacerbating tensions with Malaysia and tarnishing the historical legacy of the Sultanate of Sulu. Critics argue that the heirs have been misled by opportunistic lawyers into believing in an unrealistic payout.

The Sulu heirs’ predicament highlights a deeper issue: the exploitation of historical narratives for personal and legal gain. Instead of chasing impossible payouts, the heirs and their representatives should focus on constructive solutions that address the real socio-economic challenges facing their communities. The pursuit of justice must be grounded in reality, not historical fantasies.