First, this was an arbitration: It was not heard in any court, Malaysian or otherwise.

It may seem logical that a case about Malaysia should be heard in Malaysia. But in international dispute resolution, it is normal to hear cases in places where the government might be relied upon not to interfere with courts or tribunals.

We could theoretically have opted for AIAC arbitration in Kuala Lumpur, but the AIAC frankly lacks a reputation for objectivity. It is meant to be independent of the Malaysian Government. But take a look at its board, at the current relationship with the Minister of Law, and its colloquia in support of the Malaysian Government in this matter. And its statement of support. This isn’t a body that is serious about independence.

The 1878 contract was signed in Jolo City, in the Philippines. But we reasoned that the Philippines would be an unfairly prejudiced locale against Malaysia, and likewise opted not to bring our claim there.

The key to dispute settlement was written into the contract: If the two parties disagreed, they could appeal to the British Consul General in the region. When the parties were a pair of roving businessmen on one side and a Sultan on the others, this was a reasonable and common arbitration arrangement.

So, our first move was to get an arbitrator appointed to take on the already agreed role. We approached the British Government, asking if, as they no longer had a Consul General there, the British would be willing to appoint an arbitrator? The British Government did not – as the Malaysian Government pretends – reject the arbitration or make a judgment of any kind, except to say that the British didn’t themselves want to be involved in arbitrating this matter.

So, as we were looking for the traditional independent but relevant jurisdiction, we applied – with full Malaysian knowledge – to Spain. Why Spain? Because Spain was the government in power at the place and time of the signing of the Agreement.

On this basis, we applied to the High Court of Madrid (TSJM) asking three things:

1. Was Spain a reasonable place to initiate the selection of an arbitrator?
2. Did Malaysia have “sovereign immunity”?
3. Could Spain help by selecting an independent arbitrator?

Malaysia brought an anti-arbitration suit in Sabah, which dutifully said that the whole arbitration should stop. This demonstrated why the Philippines and Malaysia would have been such inappropriate locations.

So why did Stampa move it to France? Very simple. His duty as arbitrator was to protect the arbitration from interference. And he was spectacularly interfered with by the Spanish Government on behalf of Malaysia. QED.