Sultan Jamalul Kiram III, the last formally recognized Sultan of Sulu. Image Source: KITLV/Creative Commons

This development warrants a critical examination of the implications for the Sulu people's interests and the greater quest for transparent and inclusive leadership.

The MSUM and the Sultanate’s Expanding Influence

Established to unify diverse communities across Mindanao and Sulu, the MSUM aims to address grievances in the region and serve as a leader in Sulu cultural heritage. However, the recent placement of the Sultanate of Sulu as its leader, confirmed by Sultan Phugdalun Kiram II on February 26, 2025, in Jolo, Sulu, raises questions about the movement's commitment to the people. The Sultanate's monarchical structure, rooted in hereditary succession, contrasts sharply with the ideals of participatory governance, potentially sidelining the voices of the larger populace.

Further raising concerns is the presence of Abraham J. Idjirani, currently the Sultanate’s spokesperson and convenor of the MSUM. Idjirani was a vocal supporter of the 2013 Lahad Datu standoff, a violent territorial dispute in Sabah, Malaysia, that resulted in 56 militants, 10 Malaysian security personnel, and 6 civilians killed. The incursion, believed to have been led by the brother of Sultan Phugdalun Kiram II, Fuad A. Kiram, demonstrated a disregard for diplomacy and escalated regional tensions.

Concerns arise over whether MSUM is truly operating in the best interests of the Sulu people—or merely reinforcing the Sultanate’s historical patterns of self-preservation and unchecked power.

Idjirani’s continued backing of the Sultan through MSUM suggests that the same authoritarian, top-down leadership style that fueled the crisis is now being institutionalized within the movement. His long-standing role as the Sultanate’s public voice, including his vocal justifications for the 2013 incursion, reflects a wider pattern of prioritizing the Sultanate’s power over the well-being of the Sulu people. While Idjirani has since denounced the invasion, his shift in stance came only after its impending failure and the deterioration of the Sultanate’s political standing—raising concerns that his disavowal was a calculated move to absolve himself of responsibility rather than a genuine change in perspective. With Sultan Phugdalun Kiram II’s acceptance of leadership in an organization supported by individuals who once justified armed conflict, concerns arise over whether MSUM is truly operating in the best interests of the Sulu people—or merely reinforcing the Sultanate’s historical patterns of self-preservation and unchecked power.

The Dangers of Unchecked Power

The consolidation of power within the Sultanate of Sulu has historically led to decisions that benefited the ruling elite rather than the general populace. In 1878, Sultan Jamalul Alam signed an agreement with European colonists granting them control over present-day Sabah. The unclear wording of this agreement has since resulted in prolonged territorial disputes between the Philippines and Malaysia, creating diplomatic tensions and ongoing uncertainty for the people of Sulu.

Similarly, Sultan Jamalul Kiram III’s decision to authorize an armed incursion into Sabah in 2013 led to bloodshed and regional instability, further illustrating the dangers of unilateral action taken without the broader community’s consent.

The risks of extensive power expand beyond the Sultanate of Sulu. Absolute monarchies worldwide have faced similar criticisms, revealing the dangers of centralized authority with no democratic oversight. Nations such as Eswatini, Saudi Arabia, and Brunei have come under scrutiny for their authoritarian rule, suppression of dissent, and severe restrictions on civil liberties. Eswatini, ruled by King Mswati III, received a score of 17 out of 100 in Freedom House’s World Report (2024), indicating severe political repression. Likewise, Saudi Arabia has faced international condemnation for human rights violations, including extrajudicial killings and crackdowns on free speech. The Sulu Sultanate, if similarly unchecked, could lead to greater oppression of the people. There are already numerous examples of how Sultans have acted in self-interest over public good, including other alleged Sulu Sultans today.

The ongoing contest for the Sultanate’s throne has further exacerbated instability, with multiple claimants vying for authority. Among them, Fuad A. Kiram has drawn widespread criticism for actions that appear driven by personal advantage rather than collective welfare. His pursuit of a $14.9 billion arbitration award against Malaysia highlights a prioritization of financial interests over the well-being of the Sulu people. Moreover, his associations with the Royal Sulu Forces—an armed group linked to violent activities—have led authorities to classify him as a terrorist, distancing him from legitimate representation of the Sulu population. The absence of a unified and recognized leader continues to erode the Sultanate’s credibility, reinforcing a longstanding pattern in which rulers place dynastic ambition above the interests of those they claim to serve.

Additionally, Sultan Phugdalun Kiram II’s formal titles—Ampun (meaning “My Liege” or “My Lord”) and Paduka (meaning “His Majesty” or “His Royal Highness”)—stand in contrast to his portrayal as a “man of the people.” This duality raises concerns about the sincerity of his commitment to democratic ideals and inclusive governance. Moreover, the Sultan’s familial ties to previous conflicts and the continued involvement of figures like Idjirani within MSUM suggest a pattern of leadership that prioritizes dynasty over the collective interests of the Sulu people.

The integration of traditional monarchical structures into contemporary political movements like the MSUM necessitates a careful evaluation of their impact on democracy and human rights. Without mechanisms for accountability and public participation, there is a risk that such leadership could prioritize elite interests over those of the wider population. For the MSUM to genuinely serve as a unifying force, it must embrace democratic representation, transparency, and actively include the voices of the people it aims to represent.

REFERENCES

Daily Tribune. (2025, February 27). Sultanate of Sulu to lead MSUM. Retrieved from https://tribune.net.ph/2025/02/27/sultanate-of-sulu-to-lead-msum

Al Jazeera. (2013, March 2). Malaysia demands surrender of Sulu fighters. Retrieved from https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2013/3/2/malaysia-demands-surrender-of-sulu-fighters

CNN. (2013, March 7). Malaysia attacks armed Filipino group in Borneo. Retrieved from https://www.cnn.com/2013/03/07/world/asia/malaysia-philippines-standoff/index.html

Philstar. (2013, April 8). Fighting in Sabah continues. Retrieved from https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2013/04/08/928363/fighting-sabah-continues

Human Rights Watch. (2024). World Report 2024: Eswatini. Retrieved from https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2024/country-chapters/eswatini

Freedom House. (2024). Freedom in the World 2024: Saudi Arabia. Retrieved from https://freedomhouse.org/country/saudi-arabia/freedom-world/2024

Amnesty International. (2023). Human rights in Saudi Arabia. Retrieved from https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/middle-east-and-north-africa/middle-east/saudi-arabia/report-saudi-arabia/