Minister Azalina stated, "The UTC's threat to sue Malaysia in the United States is alarming. We must address these spurious claims that risk 16 percent of our national budget and exploit arbitration for profit, akin to extortion schemes.” Image Source: Azalina Othman (Facebook)

However, much like similar assertions made previously by recognized heirs of the Sulu Sultanate, the UTC’s claims have made no meaningful headway. Instead, their failure highlights profound internal disorganization and opportunism now synonymous with what was once a unified and historically significant Sultanate.

Opportunism and Disunity Among the Claimants

At the forefront of controversies was the UTC, led by the self-proclaimed Sultan Sharif Jubair B. Sharif Hashim. In early 2024, Jubair drew widespread attention with demands for US$15 billion from Malaysia, a nation internationally recognized as sovereign since 1963. Jubair’s bold assertions notably lacked substantive historical or legal grounding, relying instead on dramatic proclamations and uncertain lineage connections. Heirs from the Kiram lineage publicly and swiftly dismissed Jubair as yet another claimant capitalizing on historical confusion and ambiguity, further undermining his credibility.

The disorder and fragmentation evident today trace back directly to the aftermath of Sultan Jamalul Kiram II's death in 1936. Without a clear successor, multiple factions emerged, each claiming rightful succession, leading to decades of internal feuds and competing claims.

Among the prominent claimants, Jamalul Kiram III gained notoriety with his aggressive approach, most significantly through the 2013 armed incursion into Sabah. This act resulted in his designation as a terrorist by Malaysian authorities, substantially damaging his credibility and that of related claimants.

Esmail Kiram II, another claimant, sought legitimacy through a less confrontational approach but failed to unify the deeply divided Kiram family or secure broader support. Fuad A. Kiram faced severe legal setbacks, including being officially labeled a terrorist by Malaysia in 2023, further weakening his position. Meanwhile, Muedzul Lail Tan Kiram, though comparatively moderate and culturally oriented, achieved minimal political influence, serving primarily in symbolic roles rather than as a serious political actor.

Sultan Phugdalun Kiram II, another figure in the constellation of claimants, also asserts his right to the throne. Though less internationally visible, he has garnered a modest following, particularly in parts of Sulu and among diaspora communities sympathetic to his lineage claims. However, like other contenders, his legitimacy remains contested within the broader royal family network and lacks formal recognition from national or international bodies.

The support base for these varied claimants remains heavily fragmented, characterized by regional differences throughout the Sulu Archipelago, diverse allegiances, and limited symbolic support from the international Tausug diaspora. Such fragmentation severely restricts any coherent or credible assertion of historical rights or sovereignty.

National and International Reactions: Skepticism and Dismissal

The international community and national governments have consistently dismissed the claims advanced by both the United Tausug Citizens (UTC) and the self-declared heirs of the Sulu Sultanate. Malaysian authorities, in particular, have taken a firm stance. Datuk Seri Azalina Othman Said, Minister in the Prime Minister's Department for Law and Institutional Reform, labeled the UTC’s demands for US$15 billion as a "frivolous and baseless attempt... to extort unfounded payments from Malaysia." Sabah Chief Minister Datuk Seri Hajiji Noor likewise declared that "Sabah is, and will always be, part of Malaysia," signaling the government's zero-tolerance approach to sovereignty disputes.

This firm national response reflects a broader international posture. Notably, the UTC threatened to take legal action against Malaysia in the United States, a move widely seen as symbolic rather than substantive, and one ultimately dismissed by Malaysian authorities as lacking merit. More recently, an emissary representing the Sulu heirs—unrelated to the UTC—has also signaled plans to engage with U.S. legal and political institutions in an effort to bolster their longstanding claim. While distinct from the UTC’s bid, this renewed outreach follows a similar pattern of turning to international mechanisms, particularly the United States, in hopes of gaining legitimacy and pressure leverage against Malaysia. This trend of invoking U.S. mechanisms has prompted observers to draw comparisons to the proverbial tale of the "Sultan who cried wolf"—with each successive plea to external powers further diminishing the impact of the previous one. The repeated turn to international platforms—particularly the U.S. legal system—has thus become a hallmark of these fractured efforts, raising concerns about both credibility and strategy. No major government or intergovernmental organization has acknowledged the legitimacy of the UTC or rival royal heirs, whose authority remains contested even within their claimed territories. Meanwhile, international legal pursuits—such as the arbitration award once granted to the Sulu heirs—have largely collapsed amid procedural errors and jurisdictional setbacks.

Given the absence of clear lineage, historical consensus, and formal governmental recognition, these claims appear unlikely to gain meaningful traction within diplomatic or legal frameworks. The absence of unified representation continues to undermine efforts toward a coherent and legally persuasive resolution for any of the claimants involved.

This trend of invoking U.S. mechanisms has prompted observers to draw comparisons to the proverbial tale of the "Sultan who cried wolf"—with each successive plea to external powers further diminishing the impact of the previous one.

Consequences

Fragmentation within the Sulu Sultanate—marked by rival factions such as the UTC and multiple Kiram branches—has continued to erode the coherence and credibility of the broader claim to Sabah. With no verified bloodlines, cohesive leadership, or consistent documentation to support their assertions, these groups have struggled to gain legitimacy or serious engagement from domestic or international actors. The existence of overlapping narratives and competing identities has further complicated any attempts to present a unified historical claim.

One year on, the situation remains static. Persistent disunity and the emergence of politically motivated or opportunistic declarations have impeded efforts to present a viable case. In the absence of a clear historical and legal foundation, and without a single, recognized representative voice, the movement to reclaim sovereignty or compensation continues to falter, drawing limited attention from diplomatic and legal institutions and remaining outside the scope of serious international consideration.

REFERENCES

Malay Mail. (2024, March 13). Latest Sulu claims over Sabah and US$15b demand is extortion scheme by vultures, says Azalina. https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2024/03/13/latest-sulu-claims-over-sabah-and-us15b-demand-is-extortion-scheme-by-vultures-says-azalina/123122

Mangosing, F. (2024, March 30). Tracking royal bloodlines: Who are the heirs of the Sultanate of Sulu? Global Nation | Inquirer.net. https://globalnation.inquirer.net/228449/tracking-royal-bloodlines

The Straits Times. (2023, April 23). Malaysia lists Sulu heir as a terrorist in claim over Sabah. https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/malaysia-lists-sulu-heir-as-a-terrorist-in-claim-over-sabah