In an interview with CDR (Commercial Dispute Resolution) News, Azalina said the chosen arbitration process “doesn’t make sense”.

“It’s set down in Spain, somebody decides to jump to Paris and then decides to jump to Luxembourg. There are more questions than answers,” she was quoted as saying.

Azalina also voiced concern regarding the potential influence of third-party funders, but acknowledged the need for such financial support.

“But in (the Sulu) case, I cannot get any information from the funders. Nobody wants to share and that’s not fair,” she said.

The so-called Sulu heirs had obtained an arbitration award requiring Malaysia to pay nearly US$15 billion to the claimants, but the Paris Court of Appeal ruled in June that the arbitration court did not have jurisdiction in the case.

Azalina had said this decision implied that the Paris appellate court would subsequently annul the award.

The arbitration ruling in France followed an eight-year legal effort by the heirs, involving an infusion of US$20 million in funds from unidentified third-party investors.

The Sulu heirs pursued the matter after Malaysia discontinued annual payments of RM5,300 to the descendants of the Sulu sultan in 2013, after an armed group landed in Lahad Datu to pursue a claim of sovereignty over Sabah.

A legal firm in London, representing a group of nine people based in the Philippines, filed a series of suits against the government following a US$15 billion arbitration claim that it obtained through a Spanish arbitrator.

Malaysia challenged the arbitration order in France and Spain, and a French court granted a stay order on the award, pending a decision on Malaysia’s claim that the order infringed its sovereignty over Sabah.