KOTA KINABALU – The RM63 billion claim made by the descendants of the now defunct Sulu sultanate must be answered by Putrajaya, said Warisan deputy president Datuk Darell Leiking.
Speaking to The Vibes, the Penampang MP said that the issue is not something that Kota Kinabalu can reply directly as it is a federal matter, after the public received deafening silence from Sabah’s political circles.
“This is not a case for Sabah to handle because matters involving sovereignty, international representation for Malaysia and security matters are all under the federal government.
“The most is in Parliament which is now ongoing and the MPs could question what is the government going to do.
“I think the federal government should respond to this,” said Leiking, adding that Sabah itself does not have a foreign affairs ministry.
Earlier, a Malaysiakini article stated that yesterday, Spanish news website La Información reported that Spanish arbitrator Gonzalo Stampa had issued an award of RM62.59 billion in an arbitration court in Paris, France.
The order to pay the claimants was due to the so-called violation of the 1878 agreement signed between Sultan Jamal Al Alam, Baron de Overbeck and the British North Borneo Company’s Alfred Dent.
Malaysia stopped paying the Sulu heirs their RM5,300 cession money in 2013 following the Lahad Datu armed incursion.
The article said Stampa ruled that the 1878 treaty constituted a commercial “international private lease agreement” and that Malaysia breached the agreement by not paying the cession money.
Malaysia now has three months to pay up or risk paying interest following the order.
The claimants were represented by Spanish law firm B Cremades & Asociados along with Paul Cohen and Elisabeth Mason of London’s 4-5 Gray’s Inn Square, while Malaysia was absent from arbitration.
Apparently, the descendants initiated the suit in Spain as the 1878 agreement was signed on “Spanish soil.”
The case was originally heard in Madrid until the Madrid High Court (Tribunal Superior de Justica de Madrid) annulled Stampa’s appointment on grounds that Malaysia was not properly informed about the case and was thus “defenceless”.
The case was later moved to the French capital.
According to the arbitration news website Global Arbitration Review, Malaysia did not appear in the Paris arbitration hearing.
A source noted that one of the reasons Malaysia may have not entertained the arbitration is because Malaysia does not recognise the Sulu claim.
The source who requested anonymity also said Spain does not hold any legal clout as the agreement was signed between the Sulu and the British Chartered Company.
Additionally, he said the company also paid cession money to the Brunei sultanate at the time to avoid their trade being disrupted.
On June 2, 2020, local Sabah media reported Sabah High Court judge Datuk Martin Idang as saying that the High Court of Malaysia was the proper venue to resolve the 1878 Deed of Cession dispute, not the Spanish courts, which do not have authority nor jurisdiction over Malaysia.
He said this when deciding the suit filed by Nurhima Kiram Forman & Ors (2020) against the government of Malaysia over the dispute.
“There is no binding agreement between the government and the sultan’s heirs that compels either party to also submit to arbitration in the event of a dispute.”
The basis of a Spanish claim over Sabah originates from the assertion that Spain at the time exercised direct sovereignty over the Sulu sultanate and all of its dependencies.
Idang held that Malaysia is a sovereign nation and no foreign court can have power or jurisdiction over it or the principle of sovereign immunity.
“Furthermore, Spain, which signed the Madrid Protocol in 1885, effectively disclaimed any sovereign interest over Sabah,” said Idang. – The Vibes, March 1, 2022
.jpeg)
