February 18, 2025
KOTA KINABALU – Malaysia has welcomed a ruling from the High Court of Justice of Madrid, stating that it reinforces the government’s commitment to defending the country’s sovereignty and sovereign immunity against the Sulu claim.
In a press release issued by the War Room Sekretariat Khas Menangani Isu Tuntutan Pihak Yang Mendakwa Waris Kesultanan Sulu on behalf of the Malaysian government, the ruling was described as further validation of Malaysia’s position in the case.
In a decision dated 11 February 2025, the Madrid court dismissed the Sulu claimants’ attempt to overturn its 2021 ruling, which had annulled Gonzalo Stampa’s appointment as arbitrator in the Sulu case.
The court ruled that the claim lacked sufficient evidence and ordered the claimants to bear the legal costs.
This ruling reaffirms the final and binding decision issued on 29 June 2021, which found that Malaysia had been improperly summoned to the arbitrator appointment proceedings. As a result, Stampa’s appointment and all procedural actions he undertook as arbitrator were annulled. The court further instructed that Malaysia be properly summoned and that the process for appointing a new arbitrator be restarted.
Despite this, Stampa disregarded the court’s orders, relocating the arbitration from Madrid to Paris at the request of the Sulu claimants, a move seen as an attempt to circumvent Spanish judicial oversight.
During this period, he collected over USD 2.7mil from the claimants, who were backed by London-based litigation funder Therium. His actions subsequently led to two criminal convictions in Spain.
In December 2023, the Sulu claimants submitted another request to annul the 2021 decision, basing their arguments on a press article alleging that Spain’s foreign ministry had exerted political pressure on the court due to its economic interests with Malaysia.
However, the Madrid court dismissed this request in its entirety, stating that it was based solely on media speculation rather than concrete evidence.
The court further clarified that its judges had never been pressured and that the 2021 ruling was based strictly on legal principles.