Allegations of financial mismanagement and self-serving leadership cast a shadow over the legitimacy of the claim, raising questions about who truly benefited from this legal crusade.

When the Sulu heirs turned to international arbitration in recent years, they did so under the guidance of a team of lawyers who promised significant payouts. The legal team, many of whom were based in Europe, crafted the case as a multi-billion-dollar demand against Malaysia, arguing for compensation under the 1878 agreement.

While these lawyers achieved a temporary victory with a $14.92 billion arbitration award, questions remain about their motivations and the handling of funds.

Legal experts note that international arbitration cases often involve exorbitant fees. In cases like this, lawyers may take significant percentages of any awards as payment, potentially amounting to billions of dollars. The Sulu heirs, meanwhile, continue to live in abject poverty, suggesting that much of the financial burden and eventual payout (if any) will not benefit them directly.

Critics have argued that the legal team may have oversold the heirs’ chances of success, encouraging them to pursue a costly and protracted legal battle. By framing the claim as a legitimate case for compensation, the lawyers positioned themselves to profit regardless of the outcome.

Reports also suggest that intermediaries involved in the case may have received undisclosed payments or benefits for their role in connecting the heirs with legal representatives. These arrangements often bypass the scrutiny of the heirs themselves, leaving them in the dark about the actual flow of funds.

Despite the massive sums involved in the arbitration case, the heirs of the Sultanate of Sulu remain impoverished. Many live in the southern Philippines, struggling with limited access to basic services such as education, healthcare, and housing.

This stark disparity raises serious ethical concerns about the true intent behind the claim. If the goal was to secure justice and improve the lives of the Sulu descendants, why have their conditions remained unchanged? The evidence suggests that the legal efforts have primarily served the interests of a few, rather than the broader community.

The Sulu claim against Malaysia is less about justice and more about exploitation—of both the heirs and the legal system-. The involvement of lawyers and intermediaries has transformed a historical grievance into a profit-driven legal battle.

For the majority of the Sulu heirs, the case has brought no tangible benefits, only further poverty and division. Ultimately, this case serves as a cautionary tale about the dangers of historical grievances being manipulated for personal and financial gain.