A simple guide to the Constitutional crisis in Negeri Sembilan and what can be done

Image credit: https://www.malaysiakini.com/news/773390

Negeri Sembilan’s Constitution

The starting point for the dispute would be the Constitution of Negeri Sembilan (N9).

Every state has one and each is unique.

The appointment of the Yang Di-Pertuan Besar (YDP)

Chapter 3 of the Constitution deals with the appointment of the YDP. The YDP exercises powers as a Ruler and he takes precedence over all other persons in N9 (The 1st Part, Chapter 3, Clause VII(1)).

The YDP is elected by 4 Undangs (Sungai Ujong, Jelebu, Johol and Rembau) (Chapter 3, Clause VII(2)).

The removal/abdication of the YDP and the Undangs is governed by the Constitution. These are subject to safeguards.  

Abdication or temporary withdrawal of the YDP at the request of the Undangs

Chapter 3, Clause X(1) provides that after full and complete enquiry, the Undangs may call upon the YDP to either withdraw for a period determined by the Undangs OR to abdicate and relinquish his powers if:

• The YDP has Developed a serious defect derogatory to the office (e.g., insanity, blindness, or dumbness);

• The YDP becomes possessed of a base quality making him ineligible under Hukum Syarak;

• The YDP has committed an overt act detrimental to the sanctity, honour, and dignity of the Yang di-Pertuan Besar; or

• The YDP deliberately disregarded the provisions of the State Constitution.

Chapter 3, Clause X(2) states that upon being called-upon by the Undangs, the YDP shall cease to perform his functions. His Highness will also cease to perform the powers and functions of Ruler and shall cease to be called YDP. The usage of the term “shall” is mandatory (Dato’ Dr Zambry v Dato’ Seri Ir Hj Mohammad Nizar [2009] 5 MLJ 464; Tan Sri Musa Aman v Tun Datuk Seri Panglima Hj Juhar [2019] 10 MLJ 329).

As soon thereafter, a Proclamation to this effect must be issued by under the hands of the Undangs and the Menteri Besar of N9.  

There are also provisions pertaining to the YDP ceasing to function if the Ruler is charged with an offence but these are irrelevant for our discussion (Chapter 3, Clause XA and XI).

Removal of the Undangs

With regard to the Undangs, they may also be removed from office, subject to safeguards.

Article XVI(1) establishes the Dewan Keadilan dan Undang (The Council of the Yang di-Pertuan Besar and the Ruling Chiefs), called the DEWAN. It advises on questions relating to Malay Custom in any part of the State, specifically including questions relating to the election, succession to, removal from, or vacation of office of any of the Ruling Chiefs.

Article XVI(2) allows the Menteri Besar to formally refer any question regarding the removal from office of an Undang to the Dewan for advice.

Article XVI(3) provides that the advice and determination of the Dewan Keadilan dan Undang regarding the removal of an Undang is final and cannot be challenged or called in question in any court on any ground.

Our facts and the dispute

From what I can cobble together, the seeds of this dispute centred around an allegation of financial mismanagement.

2 Chiefs under the Undang of Sungei Ujong (Mubarak Doha) had established a Majlis Dato-Dato Lembaga Adat Sungei Ujong' (Council of Customary Chiefs of Sungei Ujong). The Council applied for RM170,000 in funding.

The Undang of Sungei Ujong was asked for a financial report on the monies. The Undang of Sungei Ujong then asserted that it had no knowledge of the Council  (https://www.malaysiakini.com/news/773373).

The dispute culminated in Mubarak Doha being removed as Undang on 17.04.2026 by the Dewan. The President of the Dewan is the YDP (Article XIX).

On 19.04.2026, the 4 Undangs (led by Mubarak Doha) then announced the removal of Tuanku Muhriz as YDP citing breaches of royal duty. The 4 Undangs backed Tunku Nadzaruddin Tuanku Ja'afar as YDP.

On 20.04.2026, the Menteri Besar (Aminuddin Harun, PKR) upheld the removal of Mubarak Doha as YDP (https://www.malaysiakini.com/news/773706). He further disregarded a Proclamation issued by the Undangs calling on the YDP to abdicate.

The Undangs revolt and the dispute turns political (2 camps begin to form)

The Undangs then rejected the opening of the State Assembly (https://www.malaysiakini.com/news/773390).

The Undangs also called on Aminuddin Harun to resign as MB.

The Undangs call was met by the Barisan Nasional (BN) ADUNs who withdrew support for Aminuddin Harun’s Government. As a result, the State Assembly was dissolved and early elections were called.

One can see here clearly that 2 camps were forming:

a.       The YDP was supported by the incumbent (now outgoing) MB;

b.       The Undangs were supported by the Barisan Nasional ADUN.

The outcome of the elections

On 01.08.2026, the N9 state elections took place. Barisan Nasional won a majority of the state seats and the elected reps chose Haji Ismail bin Lasim as Menteri Besar.

The Menteri Besar is appointed by the Ruler (i.e., the YDP) (Clause XXXVIII(1)).

An MB is must command the confidence of the majority of the ADUN (The 2nd Part, Clause XXXVII).

The elected reps take office and swear an Oath of fidelity

The elected reps then swore an Oath to uphold the Constitution and to defend the institution of the YDP.

However, soon after, the elected reps sought to endorse the Proclamation issued by the Undangs (i.e., the Proclamation that the YDP was called-on to abdicate) (https://malaysiagazette.com/2026/09/21/exco-didakwa-derhaka-cuba-guling-tuanku-muhriz-amk-n9/).

This endorsement was done despite an objection raised by the Dewan (https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2026/09/17/negeri-sembilan-mb-instructs-state-secretary-to-gazette-tuanku-muhrizs-removal-despite-dku-objection/235511).

As a result of this, the YDP revoked the appointment of the EXCO (https://www.hmetro.com.my/utama/2026/09/1413264/tuanku-muhriz-batal-perlantikan-exco-kerajaan-negeri-sembilan-serta-merta). I will discuss the legality of this decision below.

The Court proceedings and contempt of Court

To further complicate matters, the High Court issued an ad interim injunction on 05.06.2026 restraining the Undangs from taking any steps to remove Tuanku Muhriz (https://theedgemalaysia.com/node/805960). The injunction was applied-for by the Dewan.

Following from the injunction, the Dewan applied for contempt proceedings against the Undangs for their attempt to issue a Proclamation to cause Tuanku Muhriz to be removed. (https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2026/09/18/negri-mb-and-exco-to-be-sued-for-contempt).

What is being missed?

The Constitution is quite straightforward and from my reading of it, it does appear as if the Undangs have a point; the Constitution grants them a measure of discretion in whom they appoint as YDP and this is peculiar to N9.

The core issue now would be to deal with:

(1)    The Contempt application;

(2)    The Injunction.

These would be the 2 matters staring the Undangs in the face.

The first thing the Undangs should do would be to move an application to discharge and set-aside the injunction order.

The basis for this is 2-fold:

a.       There is a distinct change of facts. When the injunction was obtained, the EXCO of N9 consisted of individuals who were aligned with the YDP. That position has changed with the EXCO and MB now supporting the Undangs;

b.       An application ought to be moved as soon as possible to discharge and quash the injunction. There may also be a need to strike/stay the proceedings brought by the Dewan against the Undangs.

The EXCO and State Government must also be bold and initiate a Court proceeding against the YDP. It must be borne in mind that the YDP is a Constitutional Monarch; His Highness must abide by the Rule of Law.

In Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim v Perdana Menteri Malaysia [2010] 3 MLJ 174, the Federal Court emphasised as follows:

[43] In view of the foregoing provisions it is our judgment that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong as a constitutional monarch has a very limited role concerning the appointment of Cabinet Ministers. In actual fact the power to choose and appoint Ministers resides with the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is responsible in choosing his Cabinet members. The Yang diPertuan Agong upon being advised by the Prime Minister on the choice of his candidates must act on such advice. His Majesty does not have any discretion to reject or question the discretion of the Prime Minister. Revocation of the appointment equally lies with the Prime Minister having regard to the principle that it is only the authority which appoints has the right to revoke the appointment. If the Prime Minister has decided that a particular Minister should cease from holding the office of a Minister then the Yang di-Pertuan Agong would not be able to say otherwise. Reference to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong in the said article of the FC is only a formality by virtue of His Majesty being the constitutional monarch. Such a clear demarcation of power and roles between the Prime Minister and the Yang di-Pertuan Agong in matters of appointment and revocation of ministerial posts is imperative in order to realise the role of collective responsibility of the Cabinet Ministers.

Much like the Federal Constitution limiting the powers of the YDPA, the YDP does not have absolute authority to refuse the appointment of the EXCO; this would be due to His Majesty’s position as a Constitutional Monarch (see also a similar position in Sri Lanka, in Premachandra v Jayawickrema & Anor [1994] 4 LRC 95).

In-line with the YDP’s role as a Constitutional Monarch, any refusal to act or decision that is unreasonable may be challenged in Court (Merdeka University Berhad v Government of Malaysia [1981] 2 MLJ 356; Merdeka University Berhad v Government of Malaysia [1982] 2 MLJ 243).

The manner in which this would be done would be via Judicial Review, with the relevant declarations and orders for mandamus and/or certiorari being sought (NB: Article XVI(3) of the Constitution does contain an ouster clause but it is rather limited in scope, being confined to Malay Custom and the removal of Undangs under Article XIV).

What is necessary would be a measure of boldness and nerve to see it through.

A very interesting dispute and having nearly been involved in such a dispute myself (being on the cusp of an engagement regarding another political crisis in 2018 before the ADUNs got cold feet), I know that corralling the actors and getting their stories straight would be the single most important thing that must be attended-to.

One must present a coherent, cogent narrative to succeed at anything.

GAVIN JAYAPAL

__________________________________________

The information contained herein is for general information purposes only. The writer does not endeavour to keep the information up to date and correct, makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability or availability with respect to the article or the information, products, services, law, cases or related graphics contained herein for any purpose. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk.

For all you know, this article could have been produced by a chimp with a typewriter, blessed with an infinite loop of time.

Consult your solicitor before you undertake any legal action whatsoever. In no event will the writer be held liable for any loss or damage including without limitation, indirect or consequential loss or damage, or any loss or damage whatsoever arising from loss of data or profits arising out of, or in connection with, the use of this article.

Through this article you are able to link to other websites which are not under the writer’s control. The writer has no control over the nature, content and availability of those sites. The inclusion of any links does not necessarily imply a recommendation or endorse the views expressed within them.