Anak Nogori's Substack

Who Is the Undang of Johol and Why Do 70 Companies Raise Questions That Demand Answers?

Anak Nogori — Fri, 23 Oct 2026 06:58:00 GMT

(Updated 23 October 2026)

When the “Undang Yang Empat¹” of Negeri Sembilan declared Tuanku Muhriz removed on 19 April 2026, public scrutiny fell quickly on them.

First, on Mubarak Dohak (the removed Undang of Sungei Ujong) because he had no legal standing to sign anything. Second, on Maarof Mat Rashad (the removed Undang of Jelebu) because SSM public records showed he had granted rare earth mining rights to a company he subsequently became a shareholder of, before quietly exiting one month before the crisis.

But the third signatory, Dato’ Muhammed bin Hj Abdullah (the Undang of Johol), the only remaining Undang of the original Undang Yang Empat, is also being scrutinised.

What the official SSM records show

The SSM Personal Involvement Director Information report for Y.T.M. Dato’ Muhammed bin Hj Abdullah confirms that as of 26 April 2026, he has directorships in

Total companies: 70
Total companies resigned: 23
Currently active directorships: 47
Ssm Johol
87.7KB ∙ PDF file
Download
Download

That last number is the one that matters most. Not 70 historical entries spread across a career. 47 active, existing company directorships right now while simultaneously holding the position of Undang Luak Johol, one of the four most powerful traditional positions in Negeri Sembilan.

The rare earth connection

In the context of the Negeri Sembilan royal crisis, one company name stands above all others in significance:

MSZ REE Sdn. Bhd. (No. 65), appointed 19 January 2024.

REE is the standard industry abbreviation for Rare Earth Elements, the exact same sector at the centre of the Undang of Jelebu controversy. SSM records show the Undang of Jelebu became a shareholder of NREE Holdings (a rare earth company) after signing an official Balai Undang authorisation letter in relation to that sector.

The Undang of Johol became a director of MSZ REE Sdn. Bhd. in January 2024, over a year before the constitutional crisis erupted. Whether REE in the company name refers to Rare Earth Elements has not been independently verified. It is an inference from standard industry abbreviation.

The same questions now hang over two Undangs operating in the same sector.

The mining and resources companies

MSZ REE is not the only resource extraction company in the official SSM records. A full review of all seven pages confirms the following mining and resources directorships:

Tanjung Nagamas Mining Sdn. Bhd. (No. 15), appointed 16 February 2012. Now dissolved.

C & L Mine Venture Sdn. Bhd. (No. 43), appointed 14 November 2017. Now dissolved.

Anugerah Galian Sdn. Bhd. (No. 61), appointed 21 September 2020. Currently existing. Galian in Malay means mining or excavation.

Alpha Ocean Resources Berhad (No. 60), appointed 18 May 2020. Currently existing.

Air Kuning Resources Sdn. Bhd. (No. 50), appointed 26 April 2019. Currently existing.

World Gold Mining and Trade Holdings Sdn. Bhd. (No. 69), appointed 4 March 2026. Currently existing.

South Mineral Sdn. Bhd. (No. 70), appointed 22 April 2026. Three days after the declaration against Tuanku Muhriz on 19 April 2026. Currently existing.

The Undang Yang Empat hold significant customary authority over land and natural resources within their respective Luak. Under the Negeri Sembilan Land Code, the Undangs’ traditional jurisdiction gives them influence, and in some cases formal authority, over land and resource matters within their territory.

When the same person holds traditional authority over land and directorships in companies that extract from it, the conflict of interest is built into the structure.

Other notable companies

No 31: Undang Holdings Sdn Bhd. Incorporated in 2007, counts the Undang of Johol among its directors from October 2024, alongside Anand Subramaniam, a director since March 2024 and a 20% shareholder. Philippine government posts describe Mr Anand as the Undang’s “liaison officer”. On 25 March 2026, Governor of Davao del Norte said his province was in contact with “the district of Johol” over a 44 million litre fuel purchase, and that “the Johol ruler’s liaison officer” was at the provincial headquarters (Malaysiakini, 29 March 2026).

No 68: Caesar City Corporation: Appointed: 6 Jan 2025. He is identified as Group Chairman of Caesar City Corporation, alongside Singaporean CEO Julius See Qi Wen. In 2018, Davao City’s Anti-Scam Unit investigated the company over a possible pyramid scheme and named a Julius See among the representatives of a suspicious group (City Government of Davao, 23 June 2018). SSM records show the Undang owns 30% of Caesar City Corporation Malaysia, registered at the Balai Undang of Luak Johol. The group also promotes mining ventures. Suspiciously, the website was recently taken down “under maintenance”, though this publication managed to retrieve a copy of its Corporate Presentation from search engine archives.

Prosignal Consortium: He is also identified as chairman of Prosignal Consortium, developer of the TuJu navigation app, whose directors include Selat Klang assemblyman Abdul Rashid Asari (The Edge, 21 October 2026). Following the government’s restriction on Waze for official use, TuJu experienced technical difficulties amid increased demand (Malay Mail, 22 October 2026). Prosignal’s most recent accounts via SSM, for the financial year ended 31 December 2025, record no revenue and a loss of RM627,346, with accumulated losses of RM919,972 against share capital of RM2 million (SSM, 22 October 2026).

Companies that hold his title and address

Several of his companies carry words drawn from his office or from Adat itself.

Undang Holdings Sdn. Bhd. (director from 30 October 2024)
Muafakat Bahagia Sdn. Bhd. (5 June 2025), named after muafakat (consensus),
Dissolved: TU-E Capital (ULJ) Sdn. Bhd and UJ Ventures Sdn. Bhd., whose initials may stand for Undang Luak Johol and Undang Johol.

At least two, Caesar City Corporation Malaysia and Undang Holdings, give the Balai Undang Luak Johol, the official seat of his customary office, as their business address.

Directorships across a breadth of sectors

Beyond the mining and resources sector, the official SSM document records directorships across a remarkable breadth of sectors:

Biforst Healthcare Sdn. Bhd. (No. 24), healthcare, existing
NS Infotech Sdn. Bhd. (No. 49), technology, existing. NS likely stands for Negeri Sembilan
HB Global Limited (No. 55), appointed July 2024, existing
Tahap Lestari Sdn. Bhd. (No. 32), appointed 18 April 2025, existing
Rahatex (M) Sdn. Bhd. (No. 64), appointed October 2023, existing
Sinergi Halqah Prestige Sdn. Bhd. (No. 66), appointed February 2024, existing
Sachee Marketing Sdn. Bhd. (No. 67), appointed July 2024, existing

The breadth of sectors covered (mining, rare earth, gold, minerals, technology, logistics, healthcare, security, leisure, resources, marketing) suggests a commercial portfolio that extends far beyond what one might expect of a traditional chief whose primary duty is the custodianship of adat and the welfare of the people of Luak Johol.

Why 47 active directorships is not an ordinary number

To put the numbers in context:

The average Malaysian businessperson holds directorships in 2 to 5 companies. A prominent corporate figure with extensive business interests might hold 10 to 20. Corporate governance guidelines in Malaysia generally flag anything above 5 active directorships as potentially compromising a director’s ability to fulfil their fiduciary duties effectively.

The Undang of Johol currently holds 47 active directorships.

Each directorship carries legal responsibilities: attendance at board meetings, review of financial statements, oversight of company decisions, legal liability for company conduct. Fulfilling those duties across 47 companies, while simultaneously discharging the full customary and constitutional responsibilities of the Undang Luak Johol, raises serious questions about where his time, attention and primary loyalty actually lie.

The pattern across the ”Undang Yang Empat¹”

What makes the Undang of Johol’s SSM records particularly significant is that they form part of a broader pattern now emerging across multiple members of the Undang Yang Empat:

Removed Undang of Sungei Ujong (Mubarak): removed for 33 violations of adat and syariah, including withholding allowances of adat chiefs and falsifying marriage records. All offences reported to PDRM and JHEAINS.

Removed Undang of Jelebu (Maarof): SSM records show he became a 20% shareholder of NREE Holdings (a rare earth company) after a letter on official Balai Undang letterhead was issued in relation to that sector. That letter asserted the authority to grant prospecting rights rested with the Undang and required no approval from the state Land and Mines Office. He exited the company one month before the declaration against Tuanku Muhriz.

Undang of Johol (Muhammed): 70 company directorships with 47 active, including mining companies, a rare earth elements company, a gold mining company, a minerals company, and companies bearing his traditional title. Two of the most recent directorships were taken up in the weeks immediately before and after the declaration against Tuanku Muhriz.

Undang of Rembau (Abdul Rahim): The Dewan Keadilan dan Undang (DKU) maintains that his appointment as Undang of Luak Rembau was never completed. His business interests have not yet been publicly examined.

Four of the former “Undang Yang Empat” now have public records raising serious questions about the intersection of their traditional authority and their commercial interests. This is a pattern that demands formal scrutiny.

The questions that must be answered

The SSM records do not prove wrongdoing. They are public records showing legal company registrations. Holding company directorships is not illegal.

But they raise questions that the people of Johol, the people of Negeri Sembilan, and Malaysians more broadly are entitled to have answered:

1. Did any of the 70 companies, particularly those in the mining, rare earth, gold and resources sectors, benefit from the Undang’s traditional authority, land access or customary jurisdiction over Luak Johol?

2. Were any government contracts, land approvals, mining licences or resource access linked to companies in which the Undang held directorships?

3. Why was World Gold Mining and Trade Holdings Sdn. Bhd. incorporated 46 days before the declaration against Tuanku Muhriz and what is its business?

4. Why was South Mineral Sdn. Bhd. incorporated three days after the declaration, while the constitutional crisis was in full public view?

5. What is the business of MSZ REE Sdn. Bhd., the company whose name includes the standard abbreviation for Rare Earth Elements, in which he became a director in January 2024?

6. How does the Undang of Johol fulfil his customary and constitutional duties to the people of Johol while simultaneously managing 47 active company directorships?

What SPRM should do

The Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia (SPRM, the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission) has broad powers to investigate abuse of office and conflict of interest by public officials. Traditional chiefs who exercise constitutional and customary authority over land, resources and governance are arguably covered by those powers.

The questions arising from the SSM records of the Undang of Johol, like those arising from the NREE Holdings documents relating to the Undang of Jelebu, are precisely the kind of questions SPRM exists to answer.

These are public SSM filings, raising legitimate questions that are clearly in the public interest.

SPRM should investigate.

A note on fairness

It must be stated clearly and prominently: holding company directorships is not illegal. The SSM records are official public documents which can be purchased directly from SSM e-Info Services. Nothing in this article constitutes an allegation of criminal conduct.

The interpretations of company name abbreviations (ULJ, UJ, REE) are inferences based on standard usage and have not been independently confirmed. Readers should treat them as questions, not conclusions.

What these records do constitute is a legitimate basis for public scrutiny and formal investigation, particularly when:

The person concerned participated in a declaration purporting to remove the ruler of a Malaysian state
The pattern of commercial activity includes sectors where the Undangs’ traditional land authority creates potential for conflict of interest
Companies bearing words associated with his traditional title in which he became a director
A gold mining company and a minerals company were incorporated immediately before and after the declaration
47 active directorships raise fundamental questions about where his primary duty lies

Summary

The people of Negeri Sembilan deserve answers. The institution of the Undang Yang Empat, if it is to survive this crisis with any credibility, needs those answers to be provided transparently, publicly and urgently.

Integriti adat bukan untuk dikompromi. The integrity of adat is not for compromise.

Footnote: ¹ This publication uses the term “Undang Yang Empat” to refer to the four chieftains who signed the 19 April declaration. Mubarak Dohak ceased to hold office as Undang of Luak Sungei Ujong on 17 April 2026, his removal having occurred under the custom of the Luak and acknowledged by the Dewan Keadilan dan Undang (DKU) under Article 16 of the Negeri Sembilan Constitution 1959. The DKU has since acknowledged the removal of Maarof Mat Rashad as Undang of Luak Jelebu and maintains that the appointment of Abdul Rahim Yasin as Undang of Luak Rembau was never completed. Under Article 16(3), DKU advice on such questions is final and cannot be challenged in any court.

If you are new to this Substack and are not sure where to begin, visit our Start Here page, where we list all our articles organised by theme.

Start Here

Sources:

Anak Nogori is independent commentary on the unfolding constitutional crisis in Negeri Sembilan, where centuries-old Adat Perpatih, royal succession law, and modern political manoeuvring are colliding in ways Malaysia has never seen before. If you find this useful, share it with someone who should be following this, or subscribe to receive the latest articles in your inbox.

What Is the Negeri Sembilan Royal Crisis? A Summary of the Constitutional Dispute

Anak Nogori — Fri, 23 Oct 2026 02:48:00 GMT

(First published 25 April 2026. Updated 23 October 2026)

Negeri Sembilan has been in a constitutional dispute since 19 April 2026, when four chiefs signing as the “Undang Yang Empat”¹ declared that the Yang di-Pertuan Besar, Tuanku Muhriz ibni Almarhum Tuanku Munawir, had been removed, and named Tunku Nadzaruddin ibni Almarhum Tuanku Ja’afar in his place.

This article summarises events, key players, constitutional framework, court and political tracks in the crisis. For every event in full, with sources, see our detailed timeline.

Who are the key players in this crisis?

Tuanku Muhriz ibni Almarhum Tuanku Munawir is the 11th Yang di-Pertuan Besar (Supreme Ruler) of Negeri Sembilan. He ascended the throne on 29 December 2008, following the death of his predecessor Tuanku Ja’afar ibni Almarhum Tuanku Abdul Rahman. Tuanku Muhriz is known for his principled, anti-corruption public stance, most notably a January 2026 speech in which he described corruption as “the foremost enemy of justice and trust.”

The Undang Yang Empat are the four elected chieftains of Negeri Sembilan’s four territorial divisions (Luak). On 19 April, they were:

Mubarak Dohak, the Undang of Luak Sungei Ujong (The DKU acknowledged his removal under the custom of the Luak on 17 April 2026, with effect from 13 May 2025.)
Maarof Mat Rashad, the Undang of Luak Jelebu. (The DKU acknowledged his removal with effect from 31 May 2023.)
Abdul Rahim Yasin, the Undang of Luak Rembau. (The DKU maintains that his appointment in 2024 was never completed.)
Muhammed Abdullah, the Undang of Luak Johol. He is the only signatory whose office is not disputed.

The Menteri Besar (Chief Minister) heads the state government of Negeri Sembilan.

Dato’ Seri Utama Aminuddin bin Harun held the Menteri Besar position until the state election of 1 August 2026. He has firmly backed Tuanku Muhriz throughout this crisis.
Dato’ Ismail Lasim was appointed Menteri Besar on 2 August and swore his loyalty to Tuanku Muhriz. The following day, he signed a proclamation purporting to remove Tuanku Muhriz as Yang di-Pertuan Besar, although he later claimed that he had signed it under duress. His subsequent public positions shifted multiple times, culminating in his endorsement of the Executive Council’s statement recognising the proclamation as valid.

Tunku Nadzaruddin ibni Almarhum Tuanku Ja’afar is the youngest son of the late Tuanku Ja’afar, and was named by the “Undang Yang Empat” as the proposed replacement for Tuanku Muhriz.

The Dewan Keadilan dan Undang (DKU) is the council of the Yang di-Pertuan Besar and the Ruling Chiefs established under Article 16. It advises on questions of Malay custom, including the election, removal and vacation of office of the Ruling Chiefs.

Rais Yatim, a former Menteri Besar and Dewan Negara president, has been serving as legal adviser to the signatories. Rais announced the 5 June proclamation of Tunku Nadzaruddin in Melaka. On 30 July, Tuanku Muhriz revoked two state honours Rais held, and he has since been charged with sedition over remarks made at the 5 June proclamation.

What makes Negeri Sembilan’s monarchy unique?

Negeri Sembilan is the only Malaysian state whose Ruler is elected. Under Article 7(2) of the Negeri Sembilan Constitution 1959, the Yang di-Pertuan Besar is elected by the Undangs of Sungei Ujong, Jelebu, Johol and Rembau, in accordance with the custom of the state.

The system draws on two lines of descent. The Undangs are chosen within their Luak under Adat Perpatih, the customary system brought from Minangkabau in West Sumatra, in which descent and clan membership pass through the mother’s line. The Yang di-Pertuan Besar, by contrast, must under Article 7(3) be a descendant in the male line of Raja Radin ibni Raja Lenggang. The Undangs choose the Ruler, but only from a pool of candidates the Constitution has already fixed.

Removal is governed by Article 10(1). The Undangs may call on the Yang di-Pertuan Besar to abdicate only “after full and complete enquiry”, and only on specified grounds: a grave defect such as insanity, a base quality barred by Hukum Syarak (Islamic law), an overt act detrimental to the dignity of the office, or deliberate disregard of the Constitution. Under Article 10(2), a proclamation must then be issued “under the hands of the Undangs and the Menteri Besar”. Only when the office has become vacant does Article 11 give the Undangs the duty to elect a successor.

The Undangs themselves are elected and removed under the custom of their Luak. Article 16(1) gives the DKU the task of advising on questions of custom, including the removal of a Ruling Chief, and Article 16(3) makes that advice final: it “shall not be challenged or called in question in any court on any ground”.

What happened before 19 April 2026?

To understand the crisis, it is essential to understand what happened before the declaration of 19 April.

The removal of Mubarak Dohak

On 17 April 2026, the DKU convened a special sitting at Istana Besar Seri Menanti at 10am. At that sitting, the Ibu Soko Klana Hulu and Waris Klana Hulu were formally invited to attend under Article 24. The DKU was then presented with 33 grounds for the removal of Mubarak bin Dohak as Undang Luak Sungei Ujong.

The DKU acknowledged acceptance of Mubarak's removal, which had occurred in accordance with the Adat of Luak Sungei Ujong. This was confirmed in an official media statement by Menteri Besar Aminuddin on the same day.

What happened on 19 April 2026?

On 19 April 2026, just two days after his removal, Mubarak, along with the other three Undang, staged a public declaration at the Balai Undang Luak Sungei Ujong. The event was livestreamed on the official Luak Sungei Ujong Facebook page, without taking questions from the press. The declaration cited Article 10(1)(b) as its sole constitutional basis, referred to misconduct only in general terms, and did not bear the Menteri Besar’s signature.

Two declarations were read:

That Tuanku Muhriz was removed as Yang di-Pertuan Besar on grounds of misconduct
That Tunku Nadzaruddin ibni Almarhum Tuanku Ja’afar was installed as the new Yang di-Pertuan Besar

The declaration was witnessed by Dato’ Syahbandar Sungei Ujong, Dato’ Baharudin Abdul Khalid.

In the early hours of 20 April, Menteri Besar Aminuddin issued a statement firmly rejecting the declaration. He stated that the state government did not recognise or accept the move, on the grounds that Mubarak had already been removed as Undang and therefore held no authority to participate in or read the declaration. The Menteri Besar further stated that the action contravened Articles 10, 11 and 12 of the Negeri Sembilan Constitution 1959.

How has the crisis developed since April?

June: an injunction, and a proclamation in Melaka

On 5 June, six chiefs attempted to convene a special DKU sitting at Tampin to suspend the DKU Secretary and install Tunku Nadzaruddin as the 12th Yang di-Pertuan Besar of Negeri Sembilan. The Seremban High Court granted the DKU interim injunctions stopping the sitting and preserving its status quo. Hours later, Rais Yatim announced that Tunku Nadzaruddin had been proclaimed the 12th Yang di-Pertuan Besar at a hotel in Melaka. The palace declared the ceremony void, and the DKU began contempt proceedings against six chiefs over it.

June to October: three new Undangs

Sungei Ujong and Rembau installed new Undangs before Tuanku Muhriz on 27 June. At its special sitting on 31 July, the DKU acknowledged both installations, the Luak of Jelebu’s removal of Maarof, the Luak’s removal of Dato’ Shahbandar and advised that the 19 April declaration was unconstitutional under Article 10. Jelebu’s new Undang, Azrin Khairi, was installed on 14 October. Of the 19 April signatories, only the Undang of Johol now holds an office the DKU recognises.

August: a snap state election, a new Menteri Besar, and a signature

The State Legislative Assembly was dissolved on 5 June to resolve the political uncertainty in the state after 14 UMNO assemblymen withdrew their support for the government. Barisan Nasional and Perikatan Nasional won the snap election on 1 August, and Ismail Lasim was sworn in as Menteri Besar before Tuanku Muhriz the next day.

On 3 August, the day after taking his oath before Tuanku Muhriz, Ismail signed the signatories’ proclamation.

September: the State Executive Council and the Ruler

On 5 September, the signatories claimed that Ismail had signed the proclamation on 3 August at an audience with Tunku Nadzaruddin in Port Dickson. After reaffirming his loyalty to Tuanku Muhriz on 6 September and 8 September, Ismail said on 9 September that he had signed under duress, had lodged a police report, and regarded the proclamation as invalid for failing to comply with Article 10.

On 15 September, in a statement issued on behalf of the State Executive Council after its meeting that day, he said a Menteri Besar has no unilateral power to remove the Yang di-Pertuan Besar and that the proclamation’s validity depended on whether every condition in Article 10 had been met.

On 16 September, the State Executive Council declared the 19 April proclamation valid and recognised Tunku Nadzaruddin (see EXCO statement).

Ismail confirmed the decision to reporters on 17 September, saying it had been unanimous and that the State Secretary had been directed to gazette the proclamation.

Former Menteri Besar Aminuddin Harun and the DKU’s lawyers each described the conduct as derhaka (treason against the Ruler).

On 17 September, the DKU restated that Tuanku Muhriz remains Yang di-Pertuan Besar (see DKU statement). The Attorney General’s Chambers said the Executive Council had no power to vacate the Yang di-Pertuan Besar office, and the State Secretary declined to gazette the proclamation (see AGC statement).

On 20 September, Tuanku Muhriz revoked the appointments of all ten Executive Council members under Article 38(5) (see palace statement).

Ismail disputed the revocation and tried to suspended the State Secretary and State Legal Adviser, a step the Attorney General’s Chambers said the Executive Council had no authority to take.

On 22 September, the signatories and the Tunku Besar Tampin issued a joint statement claiming the removal of Tuanku Muhriz as their own act, warning the Prime Minister and the Attorney General’s Chambers not to interfere, and calling on civil servants to give their loyalty to Tunku Nadzaruddin. This publication has examined the legal questions that statement raises.

The court track

Five sets of proceedings have arisen from the dispute. Three remain live and two have closed.

The Seremban suit (NA-24NCvC-240-05/2026). Mubarak Dohak and five others filed suit on 5 May seeking the minutes of the Dewan Keadilan dan Undang (DKU)’s 17 April sitting. An injunction granted on 5 June has led to committal proceedings over alleged breaches, now also involving Menteri Besar Ismail Lasim and ten former EXCO members. The Court of Appeal has temporarily stayed the earlier committal proceedings against the original six. Next dates: 4 November (Court of Appeal stay decision); 17 November (case management).
The former EXCO members’ suit. Ten former EXCO members challenged the revocation of their appointments on 5 October, raising constitutional questions about the Yang di-Pertuan Besar’s authority to revoke appointments without the Menteri Besar’s advice. The State Government disputes the procedure used to bring the suit, while the DKU has applied to intervene. Next dates: 2 November (DKU intervention); 16 November (State Government’s preliminary objection).
The sedition charge against Rais Yatim. He was charged on 25 September over remarks made at the Melaka proclamation on 5 June. He has pleaded not guilty.
Next date: 27 October, the case returns to court for mention.
[Closed] The eviction suits. The State Government’s applications to recover the official residences and Balai Undang of Sungei Ujong and Rembau were dismissed on 24 August because the wrong party had brought them. The judge recorded that the ruling gave neither occupant a right to remain, and that it did not decide who holds either office.
[Closed] The Kuala Lumpur judicial review, WA-25-201-07/2026. Filed on 17 July by the four signatories, it sought an order compelling the Menteri Besar to sign their proclamation, and a declaration that the 19 April document was valid. They withdrew it on 7 October on the ground that it had become academic. The court barred them from refiling and ordered RM40,000 in costs.

The political track

On 27 April 2026, the crisis took on a new agenda, shifting from royal dispute to a political play.

A withdrawal of support, then a reversal. On 27 April, all 14 UMNO-Barisan Nasional assemblymen withdrew their support for Menteri Besar Aminuddin Harun, citing his handling of the royal crisis. Pakatan Harapan described the move as a backdoor attempt to take over the state government. Three days later, after meeting UMNO president Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, UMNO reversed agreed to stay in the state unity government.
A snap election. On 4 June, Aminuddin announced the dissolution of the State Legislative Assembly with Tuanku Muhriz’s consent. Barisan Nasional and Perikatan Nasional won 25 of 36 seats on 1 August, and Ismail Lasim was appointed Menteri Besar.
An Executive Council of one. After the Executive Council recognised Tunku Nadzaruddin on 16 September, Tuanku Muhriz revoked the appointments of its ten other members under Article 38(5), which says they hold office at the Ruler’s pleasure. Ismail argues that Article 40(1) required his advice first. The Attorney General says the revocation is valid. Ismail has not submitted a new list, and he remains the only member of the Executive Council.
The state’s senior officers. Ismail’s suspension of the State Secretary and State Legal Adviser was rejected by the Attorney General’s Chambers, because both are appointed by federal service commissions under Article 37.
The question of party involvement. The Straits Times has reported that Tuanku Muhriz “has held a public stance against corruption and abuse of power – in particular the appointment of judges – that has made him some powerful enemies amongst Malaysia’s elite”, including “UMNO leaders who are spearheading the move to pardon former prime minister Najib Razak”. UMNO secretary-general Asyraf Wajdi Dusuki has denied that the party is involved in the dispute.

What does the crisis expose?

The crisis exposes five areas of strain in Negeri Sembilan’s constitutional system.

1. The constitutional conflict

The disagreement concerns more than which individual holds the office. It turns on whether the procedure in Article 10 was followed to the letter, whether the people who acted as Undangs held those offices, whether the finality of the DKU’s advice under Article 16 is accepted, and whether a vacancy existed before Article 11 could operate. The two sides read the same words differently.

2. The Luaks and the DKU

These questions also bear on the contested boundary between the custom of each Luak and the DKU’s advisory jurisdiction under Article 16. The Luak removes an Undang under its own custom, and the DKU acknowledges that removal. The relationship comes under strain when rival groups of Adat leaders within the Luaks of Sungei Ujong, Rembau and Jelebu dispute who speaks for the custom of their Luak.

3. What the Constitution leaves undefined

The dispute has also exposed what the 1959 Constitution leaves undefined. Article 10(1) requires a “full and complete enquiry” but sets no procedure, forum, notice or right of reply, and no court has interpreted the term.

Article 14 provides that Undangs are removed under the custom of their Luak but sets no procedure for enforcing their removal when the removed office-holder does not accept it.

The DKU’s own procedures, such as access to its minutes under Article 22, quorum under Article 20 and the question of whether its advice requires the agreement of a majority of its members, have all been contested.

4. Adat and the written Constitution

Underneath all of it sits Article 32, which preserves ancient custom only where it is consistent with the written text, without saying where that line falls. Both camps have invoked Adat against the Constitution and the Constitution against Adat, testing a relationship that has always depended on each drawing legitimacy from the other.

5. The problem of enforcement

The DKU’s advice is final under Article 16(3), but the Constitution gives it no means of enforcing that advice. The removed Undangs have continued to sign proclamations and issue directions in the titles of their former offices, and to occupy the official residences and Balai of Sungei Ujong and Rembau. The state government’s attempt to recover those buildings was dismissed in August because the wrong party had brought the suit. The contempt proceedings over the 5 June injunction are stayed pending appeal. Police reports have been lodged on both sides, and one criminal charge has been brought. Each route to enforcement has passed to a different authority, and none has yet brought the matter to a close.

Where does the crisis stand?

As of October 2026, Tuanku Muhriz is the Yang di-Pertuan Besar and continues to exercise his functions and powers accordingly. The DKU, the Federal Government, the Attorney General’s Chambers and the State Secretary’s Office continue to recognise him in that capacity.

Negeri Sembilan’s system distributes authority among the Yang di-Pertuan Besar, the Undangs, the Luak institutions, the DKU and the elected state government. Six months of declarations, signatures and statements have tested that division.

Article 10(1) still asks for one thing before the Undangs can call on a Ruler to abdicate, a full and complete enquiry. Yet, no record of one has been produced.

Footnotes:

¹ This publication uses the term “Undang Yang Empat” to refer to the four chieftains who signed the 19 April declaration. Mubarak Dohak ceased to hold office as Undang of Luak Sungei Ujong on 17 April 2026, his removal having occurred under the custom of the Luak and acknowledged by the Dewan Keadilan dan Undang (DKU) under Article 16 of the Negeri Sembilan Constitution 1959. The DKU has since acknowledged the removal of Maarof Mat Rashad as Undang of Luak Jelebu and maintains that the appointment of Abdul Rahim Yasin as Undang of Luak Rembau was never completed. Under Article 16(3), DKU advice on such questions is final and cannot be challenged in any court.

The Constitution numbers its Articles in Roman numerals. This publication uses Arabic numerals for readability.

Go Deeper:

If you wish to go deeper into understanding the crisis, read:

The Negeri Sembilan Crisis Timeline: key events since April 2026 in date order, with sources for each entry.
Court Documents and Media Statements: the filings, official statements and joint statements in the original Malay, with English translations, where available.
Reference Library: key Articles of the Negeri Sembilan Constitution 1959, explained clause by clause.
Start Here: all our posts organised by theme.

Sources:

See our detailed timeline for full sources of each event.

Caesar City Corporation Presentation Deck (Undang of Johol)

Anak Nogori — Thu, 22 Oct 2026 03:48:00 GMT

Note: This presentation was retrieved by this publication from search engine archives from their website which currently displays a “Under Maintenance” notice.

Caesar City Corporation Presentation Deck

5.2MB ∙ PDF file

Download

If you are new to this Substack and are not sure where to begin, visit our Start Here page, where we list all our articles organised by theme.

Start Here

Tunku Nadzaruddin Letter to Menteri Besar, 20 October 2026

Anak Nogori — Wed, 21 Oct 2026 12:03:03 GMT

[Page 1]

[Seal: DULI YANG MAHA MULIA TUANKU NADZARUDDIN IBNI ALMARHUM TUANKU JA’AFAR YANG DI-PERTUAN BESAR NEGERI SEMBILAN · SAMAN HAJARAT 1448]

[Signature]

D.Y.M.M Tuanku Nadzaruddin ibni Almarhum Tuanku Ja’afar
Yang di-Pertuan Besar Negeri Sembilan Darul Khusus

Peace be upon you, and the mercy of Allah and His blessings.

In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.

All praise be to Allah, Lord of all the worlds, and blessings and peace upon the Great Leader, the Prophet Muhammad SAW, his family and his companions.

Whereas this is a royal letter of command from the Ruler of Negeri Sembilan Darul Khusus, Duli Yang Maha Mulia Yang di-Pertuan Besar, Tuanku Nadzaruddin Ibni Almarhum Tuanku Ja’afar, on Our own behalf and representing Yang Teramat Mulia Pembesar Memerintah Negeri Sembilan Darul Khusus, addressed to Yang Amat Berhormat Dato’ Haji Ismail Bin Lasim, Menteri Besar of Negeri Sembilan Darul Khusus, at the Office of the Menteri Besar, Wisma Negeri, Seremban, dated 9 Jamadilawal 1448H, corresponding to 20 October 2026, and thereafter,

We, with the consensus and joint agreement of Yang Teramat Mulia Pembesar Memerintah Negeri Sembilan Darul Khusus, hereby make known Our command and pronouncement to Yang Amat Berhormat Dato’ concerning the following:

[Page 2]

Whereas it has come to the knowledge of Us and of Yang Teramat Mulia Pembesar Memerintah that the appointments of ten members of the State Executive Council were revoked with effect from 20 September 2026, namely:

(i) YB Dato’ Mohd Faizal bin Ramli;
(ii) YB Dato’ Haji Zaifulbahri bin Haji Idris;
(iii) YB Dato’ Hj. Mustapha bin Nagoor;
(iv) YB Tuan Siow Kong Choon;
(v) YB Puan Siti Nur Umaira binti Hasim;
(vi) YB Datuk Haji Mohd Asna bin Haji Amin;
(vii) YB Dato’ Mohd Razi bin Mohd Ali;
(viii) YB Tuan Suhaimizan bin Bizar;
(ix) YB Tuan Mohd Fairuz bin Mohd Isa; and
(x) YB Datuk Razali bin Abu Samah.

In connection therewith, We and Yang Teramat Mulia Pembesar Memerintah command and pronounce that the said revocation is void, invalid, and of no legal effect whatsoever. This is so because YAM Tunku Muhriz ceased to hold the office of Yang di-Pertuan Besar with effect from 15 September 2026 under Article 10(1)(b) and 10(2) of the Constitution of the State of Negeri Sembilan 1959 (UUTKNS), on the basis of the Proclamation under the proviso to Article 10(2), which was personally signed by Yang Amat Berhormat Dato’ on 3 August 2026 and was finalised for implementation by consensus in the State Executive Council on 15 September 2026. Accordingly, on 20 September 2026, YAM Tunku Muhriz no longer had any jurisdiction under Article 38(5) UUTKNS to withdraw the grant of consent in respect of any member of the State Executive Council. All such jurisdiction now vests wholly in the lawful Ruler of Negeri Sembilan Darul Khusus, namely in Us together with Yang Teramat Mulia Pembesar Memerintah, pursuant to Article 28(1) UUTKNS.

[Page 3]

On that basis, all ten members of the State Executive Council named above continue to hold their respective offices by the gracious consent of Us and Yang Teramat Mulia Pembesar Memerintah under Article 38(5) UUTKNS, and that consent has never been withdrawn.
Now therefore, We and Yang Teramat Mulia Pembesar Memerintah command that the administrative affairs of the State Government proceed smoothly as before. The State Executive Council shall continue to sit and fulfil its functions under the leadership of Yang Amat Berhormat Dato’, together with all matters of welfare and service to the people of Negeri Sembilan Darul Khusus.
Accordingly, We and Yang Teramat Mulia Pembesar Memerintah command and pronounce that Yang Amat Berhormat Dato’ carry out the following:

(a) take note that all ten members of the State Executive Council remain in office;

(b) ensure that the State Executive Council continues to sit and that all its decisions are fully implemented; and

(c) inform and direct all State public servants that any command, appointment or direction issued by YAM Tunku Muhriz after 15 September 2026 is not to be obeyed.

We and Yang Teramat Mulia Pembesar Memerintah also refer to the Royal Decree of Duli-Duli Yang Maha Mulia the Malay Rulers dated 14 October 2026, which affirmed that the crisis in Negeri Sembilan must be resolved absolutely in accordance with adat, history and UUTKNS 1959, and without any form of outside interference. Yang Amat Berhormat Dato’, together with the Heads of Department in the Government of Negeri Sembilan Darul Khusus, shall

[Page 4]

uphold and exalt the said command by acting firmly, without hesitation or fear (without fear and favour). Heads of Department, in particular the State Secretary, the State Legal Adviser and the State Police Chief, shall pledge their full loyalty to the lawful Ruler of Negeri Sembilan Darul Khusus and shall never yield to any external pressure. Accordingly, We and Yang Teramat Mulia Pembesar Memerintah further command and pronounce, for the action of Yang Amat Berhormat Dato’, that the Heads of Department be directed as follows:-

(a) Heads of Department shall comply with and obey all directions of Yang Amat Berhormat Dato’ as State Chief Executive and in accordance with the decisions of the current Government (government of the day) of Negeri Sembilan Darul Khusus; and

(b) To direct the State Police Chief of Negeri Sembilan Darul Khusus to provide Us with police escort officers and the security privileges determined and prescribed for the Yang di-Pertuan Besar of Negeri Sembilan Darul Khusus and Yang Teramat Mulia Pembesar Memerintah; and

(c) To restore the privileges of Yang Teramat Mulia Dato’ Klana Petra Dato’ Haji Mubarak bin Thahak, Undang Luak Sungei Ujong; Yang Teramat Mulia Dato’ Mendika Menteri Akhirulzaman Dato’ Maarof bin Haji Mat Rashad, Undang Luak Jelebu; and Yang Teramat Mulia Dato’ Sedia Raja Dato’ Haji Abdul Rahim bin Haji Yasin, Undang Luak Rembau, which had previously been withdrawn unlawfully.

This Royal Command is made known by Us together with Yang Teramat Mulia Pembesar Memerintah as the lawful Ruler of Negeri Sembilan Darul Khusus, namely Yang Teramat Mulia Dato’ Klana Petra Dato’ Haji Mubarak bin Thahak, Undang Luak Sungei Ujong; Yang Teramat Mulia Dato’ Mendika Menteri Akhirulzaman Dato’ Maarof bin Haji Mat Rashad, Undang Luak Jelebu; Yang Teramat Mulia Dato’ Johan Pahlawan

[Page 5]

Lela Perkasa Sitiawan Dato’ Muhammed bin Haji Abdullah, Undang Luak Johol; Yang Teramat Mulia Dato’ Sedia Raja Dato’ Haji Abdul Rahim bin Haji Yasin, Undang Luak Rembau; and Yang Teramat Mulia Tunku Syed Razman bin Syed Idrus Al-Qadri, Tunku Besar Tampin. Truly, the compliance and obedience of Yang Amat Berhormat Dato’ will forever preserve the sovereignty of the institution of the Monarchy and of Adat Perpatih, the supremacy of UUTKNS 1959, and the smooth functioning of the administrative system and the well-being of all the people of Negeri Sembilan Darul Khusus, so be it.

In closing, We include Our prayer and hope that Allah SWT will always shower His mercy upon, and bless, all the sincere efforts of Yang Amat Berhormat Dato’, the EXCO line-up, and the entire administrative machinery of the Government of Negeri Sembilan Darul Khusus.

Thus Our command, and the pronouncement of Yang Teramat Mulia Pembesar Memerintah Negeri Sembilan Darul Khusus.

Done at Istana Serting, Negeri Sembilan Darul Khusus on 20 October 2026.

[Page 6]

Our Ref: ISST/100. Bil (6)

c.c.

YBhg Dato’ Senior Private Secretary to KDYMM SPB Yang di-Pertuan Agong
YM Keeper of the Rulers’ Seal
YB EXCO, Government of Negeri Sembilan Darul Khusus

If you are new to this Substack and are not sure where to begin, visit our Start Here page, where we list all our articles organised by theme.

Start Here

Joint “Undang Yang Empat” and Tunku Besar Tampin Media Statement, 20 October 2026

Anak Nogori — Tue, 20 Oct 2026 19:48:58 GMT

KENYATAAN MEDIA BERSAMA (JOINT MEDIA STATEMENT)
DYMM YANG DI-PERTUAN BESAR NEGERI SEMBILAN DARUL KHUSUS
YTM UNDANG YANG EMPAT
YTM TUNKU BESAR TAMPIN

In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.
All praise is due to Allah, Lord of the worlds, and blessings and peace be upon the master of the messengers, and upon his family and all his companions.

AL-WATHIQU BILLAH [royal formula: “He who places his trust in God”], Duli Yang Maha Mulia Tuanku Nadzaruddin ibni Almarhum Tuanku Ja’afar, Yang di-Pertuan Besar of Negeri Sembilan Darul Khusus, Yang Teramat Mulia Dato’ Klana Petra Dato’ Mubarak Bin Thahak, Undang of Luak Sungei Ujong, Yang Teramat Mulia Dato’ Mendika Menteri Akhirulzaman Dato’ Maarof Bin Haji Mat Rashad, Undang of Luak Jelebu, Yang Teramat Mulia Dato’ Johan Pahlawan Lela Perkasa Sitiawan Dato’ Muhammed Bin Haji Abdullah, Undang of Luak Johol, Yang Teramat Mulia Dato’ Sedia Raja Dato’ Haji Abdul Rahim Bin Haji Yasin, Undang of Luak Rembau, and Yang Teramat Mulia Tunku Syed Razman Bin Syed Idrus Al-Qadri, Tunku Besar of Tampin:

WHEREAS We affirm that the issue of custom and the throne of Negeri Sembilan Darul Khusus has already been resolved with the completion of the Proclamation of Removal from the Throne of YAM Tunku Muhriz ibni Almarhum Tuanku Munawir under Article 10(2) of the Undang-Undang Tubuh Kerajaan Negeri Sembilan (UUTKNS) 1959 [the Constitution of the State of Negeri Sembilan]. The Proclamation was also received and decided for implementation by the Majlis Mesyuarat Kerajaan Negeri (MMKN) [State Executive Council] of Negeri Sembilan Darul Khusus, chaired by YAB Menteri Besar of Negeri Sembilan Darul Khusus, Dato’ Ismail bin Lasim, at its sitting dated 15 September 2026. Official notification of this was also made to the Conference of Rulers by the Government of Negeri Sembilan Darul Khusus through the official letter of YAB Menteri Besar on 21 September 2026.

WHEREAS We also uphold with the highest reverence the gracious decree of Kebawah Duli Yang Maha Mulia Raja-Raja Melayu [the Malay Rulers] dated 14 October 2026, corresponding to 3 Jamadilawal 1448. That decree called on all parties to the dispute over the throne of the Yang di-Pertuan Besar of Negeri Sembilan Darul Khusus to give priority to wisdom, patience and respect for the decorum, custom and dignity of the royal institution. All actions and their implementation must also be founded on UUTKNS 1959. We, DYMM Yang di-Pertuan Besar of Negeri Sembilan Darul Khusus, the Undang Yang Empat and the Tunku Besar of Tampin, therefore welcome that call with the fullest reverence. We also affirm that all matters of the removal from the throne and the election of the Yang di-Pertuan Besar of Negeri Sembilan Darul Khusus have already been completed in accordance with custom and UUTKNS 1959.

WHEREAS We also welcome the said Decree, which calls on outside parties not to interfere in and/or politicise the throne crisis of the Government of Negeri Sembilan Darul Khusus. We affirm that the matter of the position of the throne of the Yang di-Pertuan Besar is the absolute prerogative of YTM Undang Yang Empat, as enshrined according to custom and UUTKNS 1959. This right is also protected by Article 71(1) of the Federal Constitution, which guarantees that a dispute concerning the right of succession to the throne of a State shall be determined solely by the authority, and in the manner, laid down by that State’s Constitution. For Negeri Sembilan Darul Khusus, that authority is the Undang Yang Empat under Articles 10 and 11 of UUTKNS 1959. The Federal Government, its departments and its agencies have no jurisdiction in this matter. They must respect the sovereignty of the Government of Negeri Sembilan Darul Khusus and the supremacy of custom and of UUTKNS 1959.

WHEREAS the Administration of the Government of Negeri Sembilan Darul Khusus must be loyal, obedient and compliant with this ruling, and exercise its powers in accordance with Article 35 of UUTKNS 1959. THEREFORE We, as the lawful Raja Pemerintah [Reigning Ruler] of the Government of Negeri Sembilan under Article 28 of UUTKNS 1959, decree and proclaim that YB the State Secretary and YB the State Legal Adviser follow the administrative directions of YAB Menteri Besar and comply with the rulings of the State Government.

WHEREAS We affirm that, according to the principles of constitutional and administrative law, at the latest on 15 September 2026, that is, after the MMKN decision, YAM Tunku Muhriz could no longer exercise the functions and powers of rule. We therefore further affirm that any functions and powers of rule after 15 September 2026 must be referred directly by the administration of the Government of Negeri Sembilan Darul Khusus to Us, as the lawful Raja Pemerintah of Negeri Sembilan under Article 28 of UUTKNS 1959. This crisis of the throne and of custom has been resolved, and it is improper for it to be made a polemic of and/or politicised as though it were still unresolved and were supposedly to continue indefinitely, to the point of threatening the conduct of the State’s administrative powers and harming the welfare of the people. Respect the administration of the State Government, which has been given a large mandate by the people.

WHEREAS We affirm that the decree of YAM Tunku Muhriz revoking consent to the appointment of ten (10) EXCO of the Government of Negeri Sembilan, and the gazette that followed concerning it, is invalid and unconstitutional. At the time that decree was made, YAM Tunku Muhriz was no longer Yang di-Pertuan Besar of Negeri Sembilan Darul Khusus and could not exercise the functions of rule. Accordingly, We hereby bestow gracious consent upon YAB Dato’ Ismail Bin Lasim as Menteri Besar of Negeri Sembilan and the line-up of EXCO of the Government of Negeri Sembilan, namely:

YB Dato’ Mohd Faizal bin Ramli
YB Dato’ Haji Zaifulbahri bin Haji Idris
YB Dato’ Hj. Mustapha bin Nagoor
YB Tuan Siow Kong Choon
YB Puan Siti Nur Umaira binti Hasim
YB Datuk Haji Mohd Asna bin Haji Amin
YB Dato’ Mohd Razi bin Mohd Ali
YB Tuan Suhaimizan bin Bizar
YB Tuan Mohd Fairuz bin Mohd Isa
YB Datuk Razali bin Abu Samah

to continue steering the administration of the Government of Negeri Sembilan Darul Khusus. We also command and decree that the members of the administration and the officers of the Government of Negeri Sembilan Darul Khusus give their full cooperation, loyalty and obedience to the State Government.

WHEREAS YAB Menteri Besar must carry out his responsibilities with full dedication, without fear of pressure from any party. We affirm that any issue arising on questions of custom and the throne that fall under Part One of UUTKNS 1959 is to be handled by Us as Raja Pemerintah of Negeri Sembilan Darul Khusus. The administration of the State Government must proceed as usual, and there is no longer any need for YAB Menteri Besar to have an audience with YAM Tunku Muhriz on matters of State Government administration, because the ruling of custom, UUTKNS 1959 and the position of the State Government are clear.

We also call on all the people of Negeri Sembilan Darul Khusus to remain calm and to guard their words. The people are also urged not to spread news that has not been verified and not to be influenced by divisive narratives.

In closing, may Allah SWT bestow wisdom to overcome emotion, and muafakat (consensus) to overcome discord, for the sake of the interests of Negeri Sembilan Darul Khusus, the welfare of the people and the honour of the royal institution. As the perbilangan (customary saying) has it, “bulat air kerana pembetung, bulat manusia kerana muafakat” (water is made round by the culvert, people are made one by consensus) and “usah dikusut yang telah selesai” (do not tangle what has already been settled).

Sekian (That is all).

Termaktub (Recorded) on the 20th day of October, 2026, corresponding to 9 Jamadil’awal 1448H.

If you are new to this Substack and are not sure where to begin, visit our Start Here page, where we list all our articles organised by theme.

Start Here

Anak Nogori Weekly Round-Up (12-18 October, 2026)

Anak Nogori — Mon, 19 Oct 2026 02:00:50 GMT

What happened last week

12 October 2026, Mon: The Straits Times reported that the Sultan of Perak, Sultan Nazrin Shah, as chair of the Conference of Rulers meeting of 13 to 15 October, had invited Tuanku Muhriz, and that Tuanku Muhriz had said he would attend only the pre-council meeting on 13 October. The report said Tunku Nadzaruddin had not been invited, despite repeated requests made through various Rulers and the Menteri Besar, Datuk Ismail Lasim (The Straits Times, 12 October 2026, Malaysiakini, 12 October 2026).

12 October 2026, Mon: The Istana Besar Seri Menanti responded through the Comptroller of the Royal Household, Datuk Azizi Mohamad Ali. He said attendance at the Conference of Rulers did not require an invitation, and that Tuanku Muhriz would not attend, focusing instead on state affairs and in particular the installation of the new Undang of Luak Jelebu. The palace added that it had issued no earlier statement on the matter to any media organisation, and its statement made no reference to the report’s account of Tunku Nadzaruddin (Malay Mail, 12 October 2026, The Star, 12 October 2026).

13 October 2026, Tue: UMNO secretary-general Datuk Seri Asyraf Wajdi Dusuki said UMNO had never been involved in or interfered with the dispute, and that it is the only party whose constitution explicitly calls on members to uphold the institution of the Malay Rulers (Malaysiakini, 13 October 2026).

14 October 2026, Wed: Dato’ Azrin Khairi was installed as the 17th Undang of Luak Jelebu, with the title Dato’ Mendika Menteri Akhirulzaman, at an Istiadat Menzahirkan Kejadian (the ceremony at which an Undang’s installation is formally made manifest before the Ruler) before Tuanku Muhriz at Istana Besar Seri Menanti. A group of Jelebu’s Lembaga disputes Ismail Mohd Zin’s authority to make that proclamation, and Malaysiakini reported that elders of the Luak had lodged a police report. In his titah (royal address), Tuanku Muhriz said Adat could not be defended by breaking its own rules, and that disputes over succession must be settled according to custom and law. The Menteri Besar did not attend (Utusan Malaysia, 29 August 2026, Bernama, 14 October 2026, Malay Mail, 14 October 2026, Sinar Harian, 14 October 2026, Malaysiakini, 16 October 2026).

14 October 2026, Wed: The Keeper of the Rulers’ Seal, Tan Sri Syed Danial Syed Ahmad, issued a statement on behalf of the Malay Rulers urging outside parties not to interfere in or politicise the dispute, which it said should be resolved by the relevant authorities through legal and customary channels. The statement called for differences to be settled through consultation, consensus, Adat and the Constitution of Negeri Sembilan 1959, said the throne must not be exploited for political gain, and asked the public to avoid unverified information (Malay Mail, 14 October 2026, The Vibes, 14 October 2026).

15 October 2026, Thu: At Istana Besar Seri Menanti, Tuanku Muhriz conferred the Darjah Tertinggi Negeri Sembilan (DTNS, the state’s highest order) on three Undangs: Datuk Klana Petra Muhammad Faris Johari of Luak Sungei Ujong, Datuk Mendika Menteri Akhirulzaman Datuk Azrin Khairi of Luak Jelebu, and Datuk Sedia Raja Hassan Ab Hamid of Luak Rembau. Their consorts received the Darjah Mulia Negeri Sembilan (DMNS). The State Secretary’s Office said the DTNS is reserved for the four Undangs and the Tunku Besar Tampin, and the DMNS for their consorts (Bernama, 16 October 2026, Malay Mail, 16 October 2026).

15 October 2026, Thu: A joint statement issued in the name of the “Undang Yang Empat”¹ and the Tunku Besar Tampin, read the Malay Rulers’ statement of 14 October as supporting its position. The signatories said they welcomed any negotiation with Tuanku Muhriz over an orderly abdication, that the Menteri Besar and the State Executive Council are the authority in the state administration, and that the State Secretary and State Legal Adviser must carry out the State Executive Council decision of 15 September. They also read the Rulers’ warning to outside parties as directed at the federal government and its agencies (Sinar Harian, 15 October 2026, Malaysiakini, 16 October 2026).

16 October 2026, Fri: After Friday prayers at the Kampung Beting Mosque in Kuala Pilah, Tuanku Muhriz publicly rebuked the Menteri Besar, in an exchange recorded in videos that circulated on social media. In the footage, as reported by three outlets, Tuanku Muhriz said Ismail Lasim had written to the Keeper of the Rulers’ Seal stating that Tuanku Muhriz was no longer Yang di-Pertuan Besar, and told him, “Until he retracts what he said earlier, go away.” Ismail responded with an angkat sembah (the customary gesture of obeisance to royalty) and did not speak in the footage. Hours later, Ismail posted on Facebook about that day’s Friday sermon on humility and the meaning of sujud (prostration), without addressing the exchange (Malay Mail, 16 October 2026, Malaysiakini, 16 October 2026, Malaysiakini, 16 October 2026, Utusan Malaysia, 16 October 2026).

18 October 2026, Sun: The Vibes reported that a series of suspicious Threads posts after the Kampung Beting exchange came from accounts with few or no followers, which published similar messages within a short period. The posts described Tuanku Muhriz as “overly emotional”, presented the Menteri Besar as calm, and several referred to Tuanku Muhriz as the “former YDPB”. The report said it could not be established whether the accounts were automated or linked to UMNO (The Vibes, 18 October 2026).

18 October 2026, Sun: The Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) opened an investigation under Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 into content posted on Threads that is suspected of insulting the Negeri Sembilan royal institution and concerns the position of Tuanku Muhriz as Yang di-Pertuan Besar. It recorded a statement from an individual at the Labu police station and seized a mobile phone and an eSIM for forensic analysis. The MCMC said it was also examining how the content had spread across social media platforms (Bernama, 18 October 2026, Malay Mail, 18 October 2026, The Star, 18 October 2026, FMT, 18 October 2026).

Commentary worth reading

Negeri Sembilan’s Muhriz invited to Malaysia’s rulers council, in latest twist to throne tussle: The Straits Times’ report is worth a read for its strong wording, particularly on motive, where it goes further than the local press has in their own reporting.

It said Tunku Nadzaruddin “has been snubbed by Sultan Nazrin”, described him as leading a “rebellion” and as having “aligned himself to the rebel chieftains and UMNO”, and said UMNO had reclaimed the state “after forcing snap polls held in August”.

It said Tuanku Muhriz “has held a public stance against corruption and abuse of power, in particular the appointment of judges, that has made him some powerful enemies amongst Malaysia’s elite”, including “UMNO leaders who are spearheading the move to pardon former prime minister Najib Razak” (The Straits Times, 12 October 2026)

The labels for the signatories have also shifted in local reporting this week. Malaysiakini’s Malay-language report of the 15 October statement first ran under a headline describing them as Undang yang ‘derhaka’, later retitled with dipertikaikan (disputed) in its place. Its URL still carries the word ‘derhaka’, and its English report describes them as “rebel chieftains”.

The headline marks a departure from local reporting in general, which has continued to use “Undang Yang Empat” for the four signatories of the removal proclamation, although only one of them, the Undang of Luak Johol, holds office.

Adhering To Negeri Sembilan Constitutional Procedures And Article X: The President of the Malaysian Bar, Anand Raj, said the 19 April proclamation did not comply with the Constitution. Article 10(1) requires a full and complete enquiry by the Undangs, which he said must follow the principles of natural justice, and he said no record shows that such an enquiry took place or that Tuanku Muhriz was given a chance to respond. Citing the Privy Council decision in B Surinder Singh Kanda v Government of the Federation of Malaya (1962), he said the right to be heard extends to the head of state. The Bar also asked for clarification of the Menteri Besar’s differing statements on the proclamation, and said the revocation of the State Executive Council appointments and the suspension of the State Secretary and State Legal Adviser, who are federal officers, called for explanation (Business Today, 16 October 2026).

What we are watching for

19 October 2026: The Court of Appeal holds case management in the appeal by Mubarak and five others against the High Court’s grant of leave for contempt proceedings over an alleged breach of the 5 June injunction. That injunction was granted by the Seremban High Court in Originating Summons NA-24NCvC-240-05/2026, the suit the six filed on 5 May against the DKU Secretary, Raja Norazli Raja Nordin, the DKU and the State Government. It restrains the six from convening or attending any meeting styled as a DKU sitting, from interfering with the Secretary, and from altering the DKU’s administration as it stood before 21 May (Malay Mail, 7 September 2026).

27 October 2026: Rais Yatim’s sedition case returns for mention at the Ayer Keroh Sessions Court, where he has pleaded not guilty (Malay Mail, 25 September 2026).

17 November 2026, Tue: The Seremban High Court, before Justice Roz Mawar Rozain, is listed to hear Originating Summons NA-24NCvC-240-05/2026 together with a number applications in the suit, according to the court’s eFiling records (eFiling System, Kehakiman Malaysia).

Separately, court documents seen by this publication this week show a new application for leave to begin contempt proceedings in the same suit. It adds 11 proposed contemnors to the six plaintiffs named in earlier proceedings: the Menteri Besar and the ten former members of the State Executive Council. This follows a letter of 16 September from the DKU’s lawyers to the Menteri Besar and the ten, which said their announcement on the Ruler breached the 5 June injunction and that contempt proceedings would follow (The Edge Malaysia, 17 September 2026).

26 November 2026, Thu: The State Legislative Assembly is due to be opened by the Yang di-Pertuan Besar, with the 2027 budget tabled on 27 November (The Star, 8 October 2026).

Whether the Menteri Besar withdraws the statement on Tuanku Muhriz’s status and whether he puts forward names for a new State Executive Council.

When the Seremban High Court sets a first hearing date for the former State Executive Council members’ originating summons.

New posts written by this publication last week

UPDATED: What Is the Negeri Sembilan Royal Crisis? An overview for new readers, covering the key players and events, the constitutional framework, the political track and the court cases. It complements the detailed timeline, the Start Here page, which organises every article by theme, the Reference Library, which explains the key Articles of the Constitution, and the Court Documents and Media Statements section, which holds unofficial English translations of key documents.

Sources:

About Weekly Round-Ups

Weekly Round-Ups are published every Monday morning. Each round-up covers what happened the previous week, what we are watching for in the week ahead, and links to posts published that week.

How to manage your subscription

When you subscribe to this Substack, you are subscribed to both formats by default: regular posts and Weekly Round-Ups.

To receive only the Weekly Round-Ups:

From any email: scroll to the bottom and click Unsubscribe or Manage subscription. You will see the option to opt out of regular posts while keeping the Weekly Round-Up.
From the website: go to Account Settings on Substack, find Anak Nogori under your subscriptions, and toggle off Posts while leaving Weekly Round-Ups on.

To unsubscribe entirely, click Unsubscribe at the bottom of any email, or use Substack’s account settings.

If you are new to this Substack and are not sure where to begin, visit our Start Here page, where we list all our articles organised by theme.

Start Here

Anak Nogori Weekly Round-Up (5-11 October, 2026)

Anak Nogori — Mon, 12 Oct 2026 02:01:03 GMT

What happened last week

5 October 2026, Mon: The five signatories issued an 11-page reply to the Dewan Keadilan dan Undang (DKU) statement of 4 October. They said the DKU’s statement was self-contradictory, unsupported by evidence or by any provision of law. They argued that Article 10 calls for an enquiry by the Undangs themselves, and that the DKU sitting of 31 July was invalid because, in their view, it lacked a quorum. The statement also said the proviso to Article 10(2) refers to “the Menteri Besar” as an office, so that Ismail Lasim’s signature on 3 August completed the proclamation Aminuddin Harun had declined to sign on 20 April (Malaysiakini, 5 October 2026, The Star, 5 October 2026, Malay Mail, 5 October 2026). These claims are the signatories’ own.

5 October 2026, Mon: Former UMNO information chief Shahril Hamdan, speaking on the Keluar Sekejap (Stepping Out for a Moment) podcast, questioned whether a proclamation dated 19 April could be valid when the Menteri Besar signed it months later, likening the process to backdating. He said he was unsure of the legal position, and suggested that anyone seeking a removal should start a fresh process (Free Malaysia Today, 5 October 2026).

6 October 2026, Tues: Lawyers for the five signatories replied that the office of Menteri Besar is a continuing institution, separate from the person who holds it. Constitutional powers and duties attach to the office, they said, so whoever lawfully holds it may sign official documents on its behalf, and the Menteri Besar’s signature formed part of completing the removal. The Attorney General’s Chambers and the DKU have both said the 16 September EXCO statement endorsing the proclamation has no legal effect (Free Malaysia Today, 6 October 2026). The withdrawal was explained on the basis that the application had become academic, since the Menteri Besar has acknowledged signing the proclamation on 3 August (Kosmo, 7 October 2026).

7 October 2026, Wed: Mubarak, Maarof, Abdul Rahim and Muhammed Abdullah withdrew their application for leave for judicial review at the Kuala Lumpur High Court. The application, filed on 17 July, had sought an order compelling the Menteri Besar to sign their proclamation within seven days (Malay Mail, 10 August 2026).

At case management before Judge Norliza Othman, their counsel, Mohd Khairul Azam Abdul Aziz, said he had been instructed not to proceed. The court ordered that the same application may not be filed again, and ordered the four to pay RM10,000 in costs to each of the four proposed interveners, the DKU, its secretary, and the Undangs of Luak Sungei Ujong and Luak Rembau, Muhammad Faris Johari and Hassan Ab Hamid, making RM40,000 in total. The Attorney General’s Chambers, for the Menteri Besar and the state government, agreed to the withdrawal (Malay Mail, 7 October 2026, Free Malaysia Today, 7 October 2026).

Steven Thiru, for the DKU and its secretary, said the four had not disclosed the pending Seremban proceedings when they filed in Kuala Lumpur on 17 July, and called it “a clear case of forum shopping, as well as suppression of material facts” (Malay Mail, 7 October 2026). No court has ruled on the validity of the 19 April declaration.

7 October 2026, Wed: The ten former EXCO members announced that they had filed an originating summons at the Seremban High Court on 5 October. The defendants are the State Secretary, Mohd Zafir Ibrahim, and the State Government; the Yang di-Pertuan Besar is not named.

The ten ask the court to declare whether the gazette of 24 September is valid and effective, arguing that a revocation under Article 38(5), read with Articles 40(1), 40(1A) and 40(2), requires the Menteri Besar’s advice. They also seek general, exemplary and aggravated damages and an expedited hearing.

The summons is supported by an affidavit from each of the ten and a further affidavit from Menteri Besar Ismail Lasim (Malay Mail, 7 October 2026, Malaysiakini, 7 October 2026).

Attorney General Mohd Dusuki Mokhtar said on 26 September that the revocation was valid under Article 38(5), under which EXCO members other than the Menteri Besar hold office at the pleasure of the Yang di-Pertuan Besar (Free Malaysia Today, 26 September 2026).

On 22 September the Attorney General’s Chambers said the EXCO had no power to suspend the State Secretary, now the first defendant (Malay Mail, 23 September 2026).

8 October 2026, Thurs: Ismail Lasim said the State Legislative Assembly, earlier scheduled to open on 16 October, would open on 26 November, with the 2027 state budget tabled the following day and debated over four days from 30 November. He said the budget could be tabled without an EXCO endorsement, that department heads would keep their portfolios running, and that new EXCO members would be appointed “in due course”, adding that “the exco can wait for now” (The Star, 8 October 2026, Malaysiakini, 8 October 2026).

He said the sitting would be opened by the Yang di-Pertuan Besar without naming him, and when asked who would open it, replied: “We will cross the bridge when we get there.” He also said his relationship with State Secretary Mohd Zafir Ibrahim remained good, and on the former EXCO members’ suit, in which Mohd Zafir is the first defendant and Ismail has filed a supporting affidavit, said the court was the best avenue to interpret the law (The Star, 9 October 2026).

The same day he handed appointment letters to 407 village development and security committee chairmen and secretaries. Article 38(2) gives the Menteri Besar the role of advising on the appointment of EXCO members, and the Yang di-Pertuan Besar asked him for a new list on 20 September. No list has been reported.

10 October 2026, Sat: Free Malaysia Today reported that Ismail Lasim might face a no-confidence motion, tabled by Jalaluddin Alias, subject to approval from the party’s central leadership (Free Malaysia Today, 10 October 2026). The same day, Jalaluddin Alias, chairman of the UMNO Negeri Sembilan liaison body, denied that the party planned to table such a motion or that he would propose it (Free Malaysia Today, 10 October 2026, Utusan Malaysia, 10 October 2026). Under Article 38(4), a Menteri Besar who ceases to command the confidence of a majority of the Assembly must tender the resignation of the EXCO unless, at his request, the Ruler dissolves the Assembly. The Speaker said on 14 September that no motion had been received (Malay Mail, 14 September 2026).

Commentary worth reading

This has gone on long enough – It is time for the law to act: Vinod Sekhar, publisher of The Vibes, argued that the dispute had gone on long enough and that the authorities should investigate and, if the evidence supports it, charge those responsible. He set out section 121B of the Penal Code and section 4 of the Sedition Act 1948 as the provisions in question, and stated that he was not declaring anyone guilty.

The column sets the attempt to remove Tuanku Muhriz against his recent public remarks. In January, Tuanku Muhriz described corruption as the enemy of justice, trust and the nation’s future, and expressed disbelief that Malaysians could continue to support people convicted of serious corruption offences. In April he reminded office-holders in Negeri Sembilan that their decisions must rest on facts, established rules and law, and not on personal desire. “Those are not the words of a ceremonial Ruler content merely to cut ribbons,” Vinod writes, before turning to the attempt to remove him.

Vinod asks who benefits from removing a Ruler who has become more vocal against corruption, why it became so urgent, and what political, personal or financial interests lie behind it. He also notes that the Ruler of Negeri Sembilan is expected to be in line for election as Yang di-Pertuan Agong under the rotation in about seven years (The Vibes, 5 October 2026).

What we are watching for

14 to 15 October 2026, Wed to Thurs: The Conference of Rulers holds its 273rd meeting, preceded by a pre-council meeting on 13 October, according to the Conference’s published calendar (Majlis Raja-Raja, October 2026). The Conference’s website still lists Tuanku Muhriz ibni Almarhum Tuanku Munawir, Yang di-Pertuan Besar of Negeri Sembilan, among the Rulers who sit on the Conference (Majlis Raja-Raja).

19 October 2026, Mon: The Court of Appeal holds case management in the appeal by Mubarak and five others against the High Court’s grant of leave to the DKU and its secretary to begin contempt proceedings over an alleged breach of the 5 June injunction (Malay Mail, 7 September 2026).

27 October 2026, Tues: Rais Yatim’s case under section 4(1)(b) of the Sedition Act 1948 returns for mention at the Ayer Keroh Sessions Court, where he has pleaded not guilty (Malay Mail, 25 September 2026).

26 November 2026, Thurs: The State Legislative Assembly is due to open, with the 2027 budget tabled on 27 November. The sitting had earlier been scheduled to open on 16 October (The Star, 8 October 2026, Utusan Malaysia, 10 October 2026).

Whether the police and the Attorney General’s Chambers act on the DKU’s 4 October request to investigate the signatories of the 30 September letters for possible offences under the Penal Code.

When the Seremban High Court fixes a first date in the former EXCO members’ originating summons.

New posts written by this publication last week

Joint “Undang Yang Empat” and Tunku Besar Tampin Media Statement, 5 October 2026 - A full English translation of the 11 page media statement released by the “Undang Yang Empat” and the Tunku Besar Tampin.

Sources:

About Weekly Round-Ups

Weekly Round-Ups are published every Monday morning. Each round-up covers what happened the previous week, what we are watching for in the week ahead, and links to posts published that week.

How to manage your subscription

When you subscribe to this Substack, you are subscribed to both formats by default: regular posts and Weekly Round-Ups.

To receive only the Weekly Round-Ups:

From any email: scroll to the bottom and click Unsubscribe or Manage subscription. You will see the option to opt out of regular posts while keeping the Weekly Round-Up.
From the website: go to Account Settings on Substack, find Anak Nogori under your subscriptions, and toggle off Posts while leaving Weekly Round-Ups on.

To unsubscribe entirely, click Unsubscribe at the bottom of any email, or use Substack’s account settings.

If you are new to this Substack and are not sure where to begin, visit our Start Here page, where we list all our articles organised by theme.

Start Here

Joint “Undang Yang Empat” and Tunku Besar Tampin Media Statement, 5 October 2026

Anak Nogori — Mon, 05 Oct 2026 14:00:00 GMT

What follows is a translation of the commentary issued on 5 October 2026 in the name of the Undang Yang Empat¹ and the Tunku Besar Tampin. The allegations in it are the signatories’ alone. The commentary replies to the Official Statement issued by the Secretary of the Dewan Keadilan dan Undang (DKU) on 4 October 2026, which was itself a response to the signatories’ statement of 2 October 2026.

The original Malay statement runs to 11 pages. To keep this page readable, the English translation appears first and the original Malay pages are reproduced in full at the bottom. Where there is any difference in wording or interpretation, the Malay original is authoritative. Names and titles are given as they appear in the original, and the short English glosses in brackets have been added by this publication.

YTM UNDANG YANG EMPAT AND YTM TUNKU BESAR TAMPIN

STATEMENT OF THE DKU SECRETARY OF 4 OCTOBER 2026 CANNOT BE DEFENDED

Date: 5 October 2026

In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.

All praise be to Allah, Lord of the worlds, and peace and blessings upon the master of the Messengers, and upon his family and all his companions.

WHEREAS this Commentary is issued by the decree and consent of:

YANG TERAMAT MULIA DATO’ KLANA PETRA DATO’ HAJI MUBARAK BIN THAHAK, Undang Luak Sungei Ujong

YANG TERAMAT MULIA DATO’ MENDIKA MENTERI AKHIRULZAMAN DATO’ MAAROF BIN HAJI MAT RASHAD, Undang Luak Jelebu

YANG TERAMAT MULIA DATO’ JOHAN PAHLAWAN LELA PERKASA SITIAWAN DATO’ MUHAMMED BIN HAJI ABDULLAH, Undang Luak Johol

YANG TERAMAT MULIA DATO’ SEDIA RAJA DATO’ HAJI ABDUL RAHIM BIN HAJI YASIN, Undang Luak Rembau

YANG TERAMAT MULIA TUNKU SYED RAZMAN BIN SYED IDRUS AL-QADRI, Tunku Besar Tampin

WHEREAS the Statement issued in the name of the Secretary of the Dewan Keadilan dan Undang (DKU) on 4 October 2026 contains the following weaknesses:

It is full of statements that contradict one another.
It fails to deny that an investigation (enquiry) was carried out on 5 March 2026.
Almost all of its denials of the statement of the Undang Yang Empat dated 2 October 2026 are not supported by evidence or by law.

The Statement fails for three reasons. It is refuted by the DKU’s own official letters. It contradicts itself. It also adds conditions that do not exist in the Constitution of the State of Negeri Sembilan 1959 (UUTKNS).

This Commentary assesses the Statement on the basis of the text of the UUTKNS and the original documents, namely the DKU Secretary’s letter of 7 July 2025, the meeting notice of 15 April 2026, the Menteri Besar’s media statement of 17 April 2026, the Sabda (royal decree) on Article 10 and Article 11 dated 19 April 2026, the sealed denial of 20 April 2026, the proclamation of 3 August 2026, the announcement of 5 September 2026 and the Decision of the State Executive Council of 15 September 2026.

Who is speaking?

The Statement does not show that it comes from a Dewan that is lawful, quorate and independent.

The Statement has no name, signature or reference number. The letter of 7 July 2025 and the notice of 15 April 2026 carry the reference SUDKU.MDKU and the signature of YM Raja Norazli bin Raja Nordin. This Statement only says “Secretary”.

There is a reason that name is not mentioned. By a warkah (royal letter) dated 17 September 2026, DYMM Tuanku Nadzaruddin dismissed Raja Norazli under Article 25. His Majesty also commanded him to stop speaking officially in the name of the DKU. Paragraph 46 of the Statement admits that the warkah was received. Seventeen days later, the Statement was nevertheless issued in the name of the same office.

The Statement was supposedly issued “on the direction of the Dewan”. But it does not mention the date of the sitting, who attended, whether the members present were sufficient (quorum, Article 20), or its minutes (Article 22). According to the Statement itself, the offices of Undang of Jelebu and Dato’ Shahbandar are “vacant”. The Undang of Johol and the Tunku Besar Tampin are on the opposing side. All that remains is Tuanku Muhriz, His Majesty’s son, and two new “Undang”. The position of those two new “Undang” is precisely what is being disputed.

Its writer, moreover, is the first defendant in the High Court case that it itself mentions. The Statement refuses to comment on the sitting of 17 April 2026 because the matter is in court (paragraph 54). But in paragraphs 14 and 15, it comments on that sitting at great length.

The Dewan’s own records refute the Statement

All four persons who signed and witnessed the Sabda of 19 April were only “found” to be invalid after they acted under Article 10. Every one of those claims contradicts the DKU Secretary’s own letters.

Undang of Sungei Ujong

Claim in the Statement: removed 13 May 2025
When “advised”: 17 April 2026
The DKU’s own record: attended the DKU sitting of 4 July 2025; styled “YTM” in the notice of 15 April 2026

Undang of Jelebu

Claim in the Statement: removed 31 May 2023
When “advised”: 31 July 2026
The DKU’s own record: attended the DKU sitting of 4 July 2025; called as “YTM Undang Luak Jelebu” on 15 April 2026

Undang of Rembau

Claim in the Statement: never lawfully appointed
When “advised”: 31 July 2026
The DKU’s own record: the DKU “accepted and recognised” the appointment, effective 4 July 2025

Dato’ Shahbandar

Claim in the Statement: Luruh Pusaka (forfeiture of hereditary office) on 30 July 2026
When “advised”: 31 July 2026
The DKU’s own record: attended as a member of the Dewan on 17 April 2026

Jelebu. If he had ceased to hold office since May 2023, it means the Dewan under Tuanku Muhriz had sat with a “non-Undang” for three years. Two days before the Sabda, he was still being called to the meeting as Undang, by the command of Tuanku Muhriz himself.

Rembau. The Statement claims the Dewan only “took note”, and that the effective date was “subject to” the Majlis Mengadap (formal audience). The letter of 7 July 2025 says the opposite. The Dewan “reached agreement to accept and recognise” the appointment, and “decided” that it took effect on 4 July 2025. The Majlis Mengadap is mentioned only in connection with attendance at official state-level functions. The “Istiadat Menzahirkan Kejadian Undang” (ceremony manifesting the making of the Undang) is not mentioned at all. The Statement asserts that the Dewan’s advice is final under Article 16(3). If so, the advice of 4 July 2025 is the one that is final.

Sungei Ujong. The Statement now says the Luak had removed its Undang on 13 May 2025, and the Dewan merely “accepted”. But the notice of 15 April 2026 states that the purpose of the meeting was “to hear a report of complaints” against “YTM Dato’ Mubarak”. The Menteri Besar’s media statement on 17 April also says 33 reasons were tabled and the Dewan “advised acceptance”.

The Statement also says that no member of the Dewan, “including DYMM Tuanku himself”, has the power to support or reject the decision of the Luak. If so, there is no “advice” that can be regarded as final. The phrase “no further objection” moreover admits that there were objections before the Chairman announced the decision. The Statement does not deny that three of the four members present opposed. The Undang Yang Empat also denied the Menteri Besar’s statement in writing and under seal on 20 April 2026.

The witness hardest to reject is the Undang of Luak Johol. He attended on 17 April 2026, and the Statement itself recognises him as a lawful Undang (paragraph 17). In several media statements signed by himself, he confirmed that no decision was made on that day to dismiss the Undang of Luak Sungei Ujong.

The two days’ notice meant the Undang of Jelebu was unable to attend. The Undang complained against was not given notice and was not heard. The minutes of that sitting have been mentioned, but to this day have not been shown.

Article 10: what the text demands

The Statement does not deny that three questions were put to Tuanku Muhriz on 5 March 2026. It only says the Secretary did not record them. Paragraph 24 was written carefully. It says no investigation was “recorded” and that there is no record “in the custody of the Secretary of the Dewan”. It does not say the questions were not put. In fact, it confirms that the sitting of 5 March took place and that His Majesty attended.

The records that were checked, moreover, are not the relevant records. Article 10(1) requires “full and complete enquiry by the Undangs”, that is, a full and complete investigation by the Undangs, not by the Dewan. Article 22 only governs the minutes of the Dewan’s meetings. The Secretary of the Dewan serves at the pleasure of the party being investigated. He is not the keeper of records for the powers of the Undang under Part One. The Undangs’ record is the Sabda of 19 April 2026. That Sabda was signed and sealed by all four Undang, and records “a full and comprehensive sitting and investigation” on 5 March 2026.

The Statement then lists seven matters that are supposedly mandatory, such as written notice, particulars of allegations, examination of witnesses and written reasons. Not one of them is in the text of Article 10. Those are the features of a tribunal, whereas the drafters of the law wrote only “enquiry by the Undangs”.

Relying on the Jawi text does not change anything. The Sabda itself uses the expression penyiasatan lengkap dan menyeluruh (full and comprehensive investigation). The Undangs do not say that the investigation was merely asking. The investigation consisted of direct questions to His Majesty, deliberation over 45 days, and a unanimous decision.

The Weld Memorandum of 1885 also supports this reading. The Statement itself accepts that Weld’s “enquiry” means consultation with the parties involved. That consultation did not involve written charges, witnesses or written reasons.

Enquiry is the Undangs’ prerogative. The manner in which the investigation is conducted is the absolute right (prerogative) of the Undang Yang Empat under Articles 29 and 79 of the UUTKNS. There is no provision that gives the Dewan, its Secretary or the party being investigated the power to determine the manner. Nor do they have power to assess whether the investigation was sufficient, after the decision has been made.

His Majesty was given the opportunity to answer. On 5 March 2026, the questions were put to Tuanku Muhriz face to face, and His Majesty was given the opportunity to answer personally. The right to be heard was fulfilled. This differs from the sitting of 17 April 2026. At that sitting, the Undang complained against was not called and not heard at all.

The power that appoints is the power that deposes. The Undang Yang Empat are the party that elects the Yang di-Pertuan Besar under the Negeri Sembilan Agreement 1898, as enshrined in Article 11. That same power is the one that deposed Tuanku Muhriz ibni Almarhum Tuanku Munawir as the 11th Yang di-Pertuan Besar under Article 10. The decision of 19 April 2026 was made by that authority after an investigation. It cannot be reviewed by a Dewan chaired by His Majesty himself.

Cannot be challenged in court. The decision of the Undang Yang Empat under Article 10 of the UUTKNS, and the advice of the Dewan under Article 16(3) of the UUTKNS, cannot be challenged in court. Both fall within the Federal guarantee under Article 71(1) and (2) of the Federal Constitution. Article 71(1) provides that any dispute as to the right of succession to the throne of a State shall be determined only by the authority, and in the manner, provided by the Constitution of that State. Article 71(2) applies that guarantee to the Ruling Chiefs of Negeri Sembilan. For Negeri Sembilan, that authority is the Undang Yang Empat under Articles 10 and 11.

That finality does not save the Statement. The final advice of the Dewan under Article 16(3) is the advice of 4 July 2025, which recognised the Undang of Luak Rembau. On 17 April 2026, no advice was reached because three of the four members present opposed. Advice that never existed cannot become final.

The sitting of 31 July 2026 is invalid. The Statement relies on the “advice” of 31 July 2026 on Jelebu, Rembau and the Dato’ Shahbandar. That “advice” is not lawful advice of the Dewan, on two grounds. First, the sitting was chaired by Tuanku Muhriz, who had been deposed on 19 April 2026. His Majesty could no longer summon or chair the Dewan as Yang di-Pertuan Besar. Second, as an alternative ground, the members present were insufficient (no quorum). Article 20 prohibits the Dewan from conducting any business if the members present, other than the Chairman, are fewer than half. The Dewan has eight members (Article 17), so at least four members other than the Chairman must be present. On 31 July 2026, the Undang Yang Empat, the Tunku Besar Tampin and the Dato’ Shahbandar did not attend, that is, six of the eight members. The Statement itself does not disclose who attended. That sitting also changed the membership of the Dewan after the date of the original position (status quo) preserved by the court order of 5 June 2026.

Therefore, the lawful Undang according to the record under Article 16(3) are the existing Undang, namely the Undang of Luak Sungei Ujong, Jelebu, Johol and Rembau, who were recognised by the Dewan itself until April 2026.

Article 29: four, two, or one

The Sabda of 19 April satisfies Article 29 in any circumstances, including the circumstances put forward by the Statement itself.

Under Article 29, the power of the Undang is deemed valid if exercised by at least three Undang, “or by as many of them as may be living at the time” (or by as many Undang as there are at that time). The Statement quotes this second part in paragraph 30, but does not answer it.

Four of four. All four original Undang remain valid, because the dismissal of the Undang of Sungei Ujong and of Rembau was carried out outside Articles 14 and 16.
Two of two. Even if both of them are disputed, the Undang of Jelebu and the Undang of Johol were not questioned by anyone on 19 April 2026. Both were called as Undang in the notice of 15 April 2026, and both signed the Sabda.
One of one. Even if the “advice” of 31 July 2026 on Jelebu is accepted and backdated to 2023, the Undang of Johol still signed. The Statement itself recognises him in paragraph 17.

Whether a power is valid or not is assessed at the time the power is exercised. “Advice” issued 103 days after the Sabda cannot change who was Undang on 19 April.

The Statement also claims that the participation of a “non-Undang” invalidates the whole process. No provision of the UUTKNS says so. If that claim were true, all DKU sittings since 31 May 2023 would also be void, including the sittings of 17 April and 31 July 2026 on which the Statement relies.

The proclamation is not a veto power of the Menteri Besar

The additional condition (proviso) in Article 10(2) concerning the proclamation is an obligation that comes after the deposition. It is not a condition before the deposition takes place.

The text is clear: “on being called upon to abdicate He shall thereupon cease to be Yang Dipertuan Besar: Provided that as soon as possible thereafter a proclamation to that effect shall be issued”. That is, as soon as he is called upon to abdicate, His Majesty immediately ceases to be Yang di-Pertuan Besar, and thereafter a proclamation about it must be issued as soon as possible. A proclamation announces something that has already happened. It cannot become a condition for the thing it announces.

The Statement says “a proviso is a condition precedent”, but does not cite any legal authority. That interpretation gives the Menteri Besar the power to annul the decision of the Undangs, when the Menteri Besar is appointed by the Ruler who is being investigated. The UUTKNS does not confer such a power. The claim that the proclamation can “lapse” is also not in the text.

The Statement itself admits that the proclamation document was sent to the Menteri Besar on 20 April 2026, the day after the Sabda. The Undangs acted immediately. The delay stemmed from the refusal of the Menteri Besar at that time. He was also the writer of the media statement of 17 April, which was denied under seal by the Undang Yang Empat.

The proviso refers to “the Menteri Besar” as an office, not to a particular person. The signature of YAB Dato’ Haji Ismail bin Lasim on 3 August 2026 fulfilled that obligation.

Article 10(2) does not require the proclamation to be gazetted. The view of the Attorney General’s Chambers, meanwhile, is only advice, not a decision.

What the said DKU Statement leaves out. Paragraph 39 quotes the Menteri Besar’s statement of 9 September 2026 and stops there. It does not mention Decision of the State Executive Council No. 6 of 2026, made on 15 September 2026 and announced on 16 September 2026. That Council, chaired by the Menteri Besar, decided four matters jointly:

The Article 10 Proclamation dated 19 April 2026 was signed and sealed by the “lawful YTM Undang Luak, holding authority”, and became “complete under Article 10(2)” with the Menteri Besar’s signature on 3 August 2026.
The Article 11 Proclamation electing DYMM Tuanku Nadzaruddin is “in order and complete under the UUTKNS 1959”.
Tuanku Muhriz is officially announced as having been deposed, and DYMM Tuanku Nadzaruddin is recognised as Yang di-Pertuan Besar.
The State Government Administration shall take immediate steps to implement the announcement.

That decision was made six days after the statement of 9 September, and 19 days before the Statement was issued. That is the official and latest position of the State Government. The Statement itself asserts that the requirements of Article 10 “do not depend on political interests”. Yet it chose one statement of the Menteri Besar, and hid the joint decision of the Council that replaced it. That decision also closes off any claim that the signature of 3 August was made under coercion.

Two dates, one conclusion

The Statement tries to turn the existence of two dates, namely 19 April and 3 August 2026, into a contradiction. Those two dates in fact come from two ways of reading Article 10(2). Both readings lead to the same conclusion: Tuanku Muhriz is no longer Yang di-Pertuan Besar.

The position of the Undang Yang Empat. The deposition was complete on 19 April 2026. Article 10(2) provides that His Majesty “shall thereupon cease” (ceases immediately) as soon as he is called upon to abdicate. The proclamation only announces that deposition. It does not create it.

Why the proclamation was only signed on 3 August. The proclamation document was sent to the Menteri Besar on 20 April 2026, the day after the Sabda. The Menteri Besar at that time, Dato’ Seri Utama Aminuddin, refused to perform his constitutional obligation to sign. By that, he defied the decision of the Undang Yang Empat. He also issued a media statement on 17 April 2026 claiming that Dato’ Mubarak had been stripped of the office of Undang of Luak Sungei Ujong with the pemuafakatan (consensus) of the DKU. That claim is untrue, and was denied under seal by the Undang Yang Empat on 20 April 2026. The gap between 19 April and 3 August 2026 stems from that defiance, not from any defect in the Sabda. The defiance of an office-holder cannot suspend the effect of Article 10(2). Nor can the party that benefits from it make it an excuse. After the State Election, the new Menteri Besar took the oath on 2 August 2026 and signed the proclamation on 3 August 2026. The phrase “as soon as possible” (secepat mungkin) is assessed according to the circumstances. The signature was affixed one day after there was a Menteri Besar willing to perform that obligation.

The position of the State Government. On 15 September 2026, the State Executive Council accepted the proclamation as “complete under Article 10(2)” with the signature of 3 August, and directed that it be implemented immediately. That decision was made after the appointment of the Council’s members was gazetted, so that it could not be challenged on the ground of the Council’s membership. The UUTKNS does not require a proclamation under Article 10 to be gazetted.

19 April 2026: Sabda on Article 10 and Article 11. Position: for the Undang Yang Empat, the deposition is complete.

20 April 2026: Proclamation document sent to the Menteri Besar. Position: the Menteri Besar at that time defied by refusing to sign.

2 August 2026: New Menteri Besar takes the oath. Position: there is a Menteri Besar willing to fulfil the proviso.

3 August 2026: Menteri Besar signs the proclamation. Position: the proviso of Article 10(2) is completed.

15 September 2026: Decision of the State Executive Council No. 6/2026. Position: the State Government accepts the proclamation and directs its implementation.

Both readings defeat the Statement. The Statement argues that if Tuanku Muhriz ceased on 19 April, the appointment of the Menteri Besar is also affected. That argument fails under any reading. Under the reading of the Undang Yang Empat, the Menteri Besar had an audience with DYMM Tuanku Nadzaruddin and the Ruling Chiefs on 3 August 2026 to receive royal consent, and this satisfies Articles 40(2)(a) and 28(2). Under the Statement’s own reading, namely that the proclamation is a condition, the Menteri Besar who took the oath on 2 August is the lawful Menteri Besar, and his signature on 3 August fulfils that condition. The Statement cannot defend the appointment of the Menteri Besar while rejecting his signature.

Point of convergence. The Undang Yang Empat and the State Government differ only in their interpretation of when the deposition was complete, not of whether it happened. Both agree that, at the latest after 15 September 2026, Tuanku Muhriz can no longer exercise the functions and powers of government. The existence of the two dates does not affect the validity of the Sabda, and does not affect the decision of the Council.

The real cause of the dispute. The issue raised by the Statement does not stem from the two dates. Its cause is defiance. Tuanku Muhriz defied the decision of the Undang Yang Empat. Then the State Secretary and the State Legal Adviser in turn defiantly refused to comply with the decision of the State Executive Council that gave effect to that decision.

The Ruler, the Dewan and the Court

Three other arguments in the Statement also evade the relevant legal text.

“Only one Ruler.” The Statement relies on Articles 7(1) and 30, which concern precedence (who takes precedence). Precedence does not mean sole power. Article 28 defines “Ruler” as “His Highness and the Ruling Chiefs” (His Majesty together with the Ruling Chiefs), but this text is not quoted. Article 160(2) of the Federal Constitution, as quoted by the Statement itself, states that the Yang di-Pertuan Besar acts on his own behalf and on behalf of the Ruling Chiefs “in accordance with UUTKNS 1959”, that is, in accordance with Article 28. Paragraph 35 of the Statement finally admits that there is a “requirement for the consent of the Undang”.

The Statement also fails to distinguish six terms, namely “Ruler”, “His Highness”, “the Ruling Chiefs”, “Undang Yang Empat”, “Dato’ Shahbandar Sungei Ujong” and “Dewan Keadilan dan Undang”. The UUTKNS gives each of them its own meaning, with different powers, prerogatives and functions:

Ruler

Membership: Yang di-Pertuan Besar, Undang Yang Empat and Tunku Besar Tampin
Number of members: 6 persons
UUTKNS provision: Article 28

His Highness

Membership: Yang di-Pertuan Besar
Number of members: 1 person
UUTKNS provision: Article 7, Article 33

The Ruling Chiefs

Membership: Undang Luak Sungei Ujong, Undang Luak Jelebu, Undang Luak Johol, Undang Luak Rembau and Tunku Besar Tampin
Number of members: 5 persons
UUTKNS provision: Article 14, Article 33

Undang Yang Empat

Membership: Undang Luak Sungei Ujong, Undang Luak Jelebu, Undang Luak Johol and Undang Luak Rembau
Number of members: 4 persons
UUTKNS provision: Article 14, Article 29, Article 33

Dato’ Shahbandar Sungei Ujong

Membership: Dato’ Shahbandar Sungei Ujong
Number of members: 1 person
UUTKNS provision: Article 15

Dewan Keadilan dan Undang

Membership: Yang di-Pertuan Besar, Undang Yang Empat and Tunku Besar Tampin, Tunku Besar Sri Menanti and Dato’ Shahbandar
Number of members: 8 persons
UUTKNS provision: Article 17

The Dewan as judge. Article 16 gives the Dewan the duty of advising on custom. The Undang are elected and removed according to the custom of the Luak (Article 14), not by the Dewan. Whether the Undangs complied with Article 10 is a constitutional question, not a question of custom. Article 16(3) refers only to advice concerning the Ruling Chiefs under Article 14. It does not refer to the deposition of the Yang di-Pertuan Besar under Article 10. The decision of 31 July 2026 that the Sabda is “invalid” was, moreover, made by a body chaired by the very person who is the subject of the Sabda. The Statement seems to realise this: paragraph 53(d) asks for evidence to be brought “before a forum of competent jurisdiction”.

The function of the Dewan under Article 16 cannot limit or override the powers, prerogatives and jurisdiction of the Undang Yang Empat. Those powers are preserved by Article 79, which reads: “Except as expressed herein, this Constitution shall not affect the prerogatives, powers and jurisdiction of His Highness and the Ruling Chiefs”. That is, except as expressly stated, this Constitution does not touch the prerogatives, powers and jurisdiction of His Majesty and the Ruling Chiefs. Those powers are also bound under the 1898 Agreement, which was repeated and reaffirmed by the 1934 Agreement. That Agreement is the basic framework of the union (confederation) of Negeri Sembilan. Under it, the Undang Yang Empat appoint the Yamtuan Besar Sri Menanti as Yang di-Pertuan Besar of Negeri Sembilan.

The injunction of 5 June 2026. The court order is only temporary (ad interim), that is, temporary pending the determination of other applications. The court has not yet heard the case in full, and did not decide who is Yang di-Pertuan Besar or who is Undang. The order preserves the state of the DKU as it was before 21 May 2026, when the existing Undang Yang Empat were members of the Dewan. Its prohibition concerns the meetings and administration of the DKU, not the powers of the Undang under Articles 10 and 11. The Statement itself admits that the Special Sitting of 5 September was not a sitting of the Dewan. The warkah of 17 September, for its part, was issued by DYMM Tuanku Nadzaruddin, who is not a party to the case.

The accusation of derhaka (treason against the Ruler) and the call for the police to prosecute were made without citing a single section of law. They come from the office of the SUDKU (Secretary of the DKU), whose duty is only to record the meetings of a customary advisory council.

Closing

The Statement of 4 October 2026 wants the public to believe that the four Ruling Chiefs are not lawful office-holders. Yet the DKU itself recognised them until April 2026. That claim arose only after they acted under Article 10 of UUTKNS 1959. It is an established principle of law that “he who seeks equity must come with clean hands”. Not by acting hastily to ‘dismiss’ all the lawful Undang, abusing the function of the Dewan and deliberately breaching the express provisions of the UUTKNS to justify the supposed ‘dismissal’ of those Undang only after the Undang exercised their prerogative under Article 10 of UUTKNS 1959.

The DKU letter of 7 July 2025 and the notice of 15 April 2026 prove otherwise. Both letters come from the same office.

The Statement itself calls for the institution of custom to be carried out “in accordance with the text of UUTKNS 1959, the lawful record and justice to all parties”. The Statement fails on all three of those matters:

The text of Articles 10, 28 and 29 is not answered.
The minutes of the sittings of 17 April and 31 July are not shown.
The Undang complained against was never heard.

WHEREAS the lawful Undang Yang Empat are the original Undang, namely:

YTM Dato’ Klana Petra Dato’ Haji Mubarak bin Thahak, Undang Luak Sungei Ujong.
YTM Dato’ Mendika Menteri Akhirulzaman Dato’ Maarof bin Haji Mat Rashad, Undang Luak Jelebu.
YTM Dato’ Johan Pahlawan Lela Perkasa Sitiawan Dato’ Muhammed bin Haji Abdullah, Undang Luak Johol.
YTM Dato’ Sedia Raja Dato’ Haji Abdul Rahim bin Haji Yasin, Undang Luak Rembau.

Under Article 71 of the Federal Constitution, disputes about the throne are decided only by the authority provided by the UUTKNS. That authority is the Undang Yang Empat. They made their decision on 19 April 2026 under Articles 10 and 29. The original documents of the DKU also support that decision. As the perbilangan (Adat saying) has it, “Raja bertitah sekali, Undang bersabda sekali” (the Ruler commands once, the Undang decree once).

That is all.

"Undang" Statement, 5 October

12.3MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Footnote:

The allegations in this commentary are those of its signatories.

If you are new to this Substack and are not sure where to begin, visit our Start Here page, where we list all our articles organised by theme.

Start Here

Anak Nogori Weekly Round-Up (28 September-4 October, 2026)

Anak Nogori — Mon, 05 Oct 2026 02:00:41 GMT

What happened last week

28 September 2026, Mon: The ten former State Executive Council (EXCO) members whose appointments Tuanku Muhriz revoked on 20 September gave statements to Bukit Aman police, who are investigating on the basis of several police reports (Malay Mail, 28 September 2026).

Mohd Asna Amin, the assemblyman for Lenggeng, said he answered more than 60 questions in about half an hour, while Mohd Fairuz Mohd Isa, the assemblyman for Serting, said his session took about two hours (Utusan Malaysia, 28 September 2026).

The State Secretary’s office instructed the ten to return their official cars (Bernama, 28 September 2026).

29 September 2026, Tues: Ismail Lasim had a three-hour audience with Tuanku Muhriz, attended by the Undangs of Luak Sungei Ujong and Luak Rembau and the state police chief (Malay Mail, 29 September 2026). Bernama reported that his car left by the back gate (Bernama, 29 September 2026). Neither side has said what was discussed.

30 September 2026, Wed: Aminuddin Harun, PKR Negeri Sembilan chairman and former Menteri Besar, called for a quick end to the impasse, warning that stalled land approvals and vacant EXCO posts could weaken investor confidence (Malay Mail, 30 September 2026).

30 September 2026, Wed: UMNO Negeri Sembilan information chief Muhammad Sufian Maradzi replied that the crisis began at the Dewan Keadilan dan Undang (DKU) sitting of 17 April, which acknowledged the removal of ex-Undang Mubarak Dohak, and asked why its minutes were never produced (Malaysiakini, 30 September 2026, The Star, 30 September 2026).

Aminuddin responded, stating that the minutes have not been confirmed and are classified and can be released only by the DKU. Access to its minutes is the subject of an originating summons that Mubarak and five others filed at the Seremban High Court on 5 May, and that case is still before the court (Malaysiakini, 30 September 2026, Free Malaysia Today, 5 May 2026)

2 October 2026, Fri: The Undang of Luak Johol, the removed Undangs Maarof Mat Rashad and Abdul Rahim Yasin, Mubarak and the Tunku Besar Tampin issued yet another statement; this time, a 12-page statement justifying the 19 April declaration. It alleges that Tuanku Muhriz interfered in Luak affairs in breach of an 1898 treaty, and urges the State Secretary and civil servants to recognise his removal (Malaysiakini, 2 October 2026, Free Malaysia Today, 2 October 2026). Read a full English translation of the “Undang” statement. Our X account has also posted a response, highlighting inaccuracies in their statement.

3 October 2026, Sat: A letter dated 30 September, in Tunku Nadzaruddin’s name and with the same five signatures, circulated asking the Chief Secretary to the Government to withdraw State Secretary Mohd Zafir Ibrahim’s posting. It objects to the 24 September gazette revoking the EXCO, and asks that federal officers process no instrument in the Ruler’s name without the signatories’ authentication (The Vibes, 3 October 2026).

4 October 2026, Sun: In a 17-page official statement, the DKU said Tuanku Muhriz remains Yang di-Pertuan Besar and that no “full and complete enquiry” under Article 10 ever took place. It rejected the 2 October claims of interference in Luak affairs, and restated the official position of each Undang office: Mubarak and Maarof have been removed, and Abdul Rahim Yasin’s appointment was never completed. The DKU described the 30 September letters as derhaka (treason against the Ruler) that may give rise to an offence under the Penal Code, and asked the police and the Attorney General’s Chambers to investigate. Read a full English translation of the DKU statement.

Commentary worth reading

Pemerintah N Sembilan bertindak dalam bidang kuasa batal lantikan exco, kata bekas hakim, Hishamudin Yunus: A former judge told Free Malaysia Today that Tuanku Muhriz acted within his powers in revoking the ten EXCO appointments, a view that aligns with the Attorney General’s of 26 September (Free Malaysia Today, 1 October 2026).

Prolonged Negeri crisis could potentially crack monarchical institution, Murray Hunter: Murray Hunter reads the crisis as a test of the moral line Tuanku Muhriz drew in his January speech, that tolerance of corruption and disregard for the rule of law corrode a just society. He argues that every month without mediation or an authoritative ruling widens the cracks in the monarchy, and that institutions which stay silent will be judged alongside the claimants and politicians (The Vibes, 2 October 2026).

Malaysian State’s Royal Crisis Complicates UMNO’s Comeback: Bloomberg looks at how the crisis complicates UMNO’s electoral comeback. “UMNO underestimated the intensity of the crisis, and its actions since August have both escalated the crisis and put the party in the spotlight for blame” (Bloomberg, 2 October 2026).

Has BN the moral authority to govern Negeri Sembilan? Senior journalist Minderjeet Kaur at Free Malaysia Today opinion piece asks whether BN has the moral authority to govern Negeri Sembilan. “The reality is stark. BN, despite its numbers, has no clear path to government and stability. In any case, Negeri Sembilan’s people deserve better” (Free Malaysia Today, 3 October 2026).

What we are watching for

7 October 2026: Judicial review WA-25-201-07/2026 returns before Judge Norliza Othman.

19 October 2026: The Court of Appeal hears the appeal by Mubarak and five others against leave for contempt proceedings.

27 October 2026: Rais Yatim’s sedition case returns for mention.

Whether the police and the Attorney General’s Chambers act on the DKU’s 4 October request to investigate the signatories of the 30 September letters for possible offences under the Penal Code.

New posts written by this publication last week

Updated: What is Article 22 of the Negeri Sembilan Constitution 1959? - Article 22 states that minutes shall be kept at all DKU meetings, and each meeting shall confirm the minutes of the last preceding meeting. Our article has been updated to updated to point out inaccuracies in UMNO's 30 September statement on the 17 April minutes.

Joint “Undang Yang Empat” and Tunku Besar Tampin Media Statement, 2 October 2026. A full English translation of the 12 page media statement released by the “Undang Yang Empat” and the Tunku Besar Tampin.

DKU Official Statement, 4 October 2026 - a full English translation of the 17 page document.

Sources:

About Weekly Round-Ups

Weekly Round-Ups are published every Monday morning. Each round-up covers what happened the previous week, what we are watching for in the week ahead, and links to posts published that week.

How to manage your subscription

When you subscribe to this Substack, you are subscribed to both formats by default: regular posts and Weekly Round-Ups.

To receive only the Weekly Round-Ups:

From any email: scroll to the bottom and click Unsubscribe or Manage subscription. You will see the option to opt out of regular posts while keeping the Weekly Round-Up.
From the website: go to Account Settings on Substack, find Anak Nogori under your subscriptions, and toggle off Posts while leaving Weekly Round-Ups on.

To unsubscribe entirely, click Unsubscribe at the bottom of any email, or use Substack’s account settings.

If you are new to this Substack and are not sure where to begin, visit our Start Here page, where we list all our articles organised by theme.

Start Here

DKU Official Statement, 4 October 2026

Anak Nogori — Sun, 04 Oct 2026 15:37:56 GMT

OFFICIAL STATEMENT
SECRETARY OF THE DEWAN KEADILAN DAN UNDANG
NEGERI SEMBILAN

INTRODUCTION

The Dewan Keadilan dan Undang Negeri Sembilan (“the Dewan”) has been informed of a document dated 2 October 2026 made by individuals who, with one exception, no longer hold lawful office as Undang in Negeri Sembilan (“the Document”), and of two letters, purportedly “warkah” (royal letters), dated 30 September 2026 and addressed respectively to the Chief Secretary to the Government and to the Attorney General (“the Letters”). The claims in the Document and the Letters are misleading and contrary to the advice and decisions of the Dewan on matters of adat in Negeri Sembilan and to the Constitution of the State of Negeri Sembilan 1959 (“UUTKNS 1959”).
This statement is issued on the direction of the Dewan. It sets out the Dewan’s record on those claims so that the Federal and State authorities, State officers and the people of Negeri Sembilan know the true position.
The Document does not alter the constitutional or administrative position currently in force. The length of a statement, the repetition of a claim or the use of adat language cannot substitute for compliance with the mandatory requirements of Article 10 of UUTKNS 1959.

POWERS OF THE DEWAN IN MATTERS OF ADAT

Under UUTKNS 1959, the authority on questions of Malay adat in Negeri Sembilan, including those relating to the four Undang and the Tunku Besar Tampin, is the Dewan. UUTKNS 1959 establishes the Dewan Keadilan dan Undang (The Council of the Yang di-Pertuan Besar and the Ruling Chiefs) and entrusts to it questions of Malay adat in any part of the State, including questions relating to the election or succession to, or removal from or vacation of office of, any of the four Undang and the Tunku Besar Tampin referred to in Article 14 (Article 16(1)). No other body or person is given that function.
Under Article 16(3), the Dewan’s advice on those questions is final and may not be challenged or called into question in any court on any ground whatsoever. This position has been affirmed by the Federal Court in several cases. No proclamation, statement or document issued by any person can override the Dewan’s advice on who lawfully holds the office of Undang.

DYMM TUANKU MUHRIZ IBNI ALMARHUM TUANKU MUNAWIR REMAINS YANG DI-PERTUAN BESAR

Duli Yang Maha Mulia Tuanku Muhriz ibni Almarhum Tuanku Munawir is, and remains, the Yang di-Pertuan Besar of Negeri Sembilan. DYMM Tuanku Muhriz was elected by the Undang and proclaimed the 11th Yang di-Pertuan Besar on 29 December 2008, and was formally installed in accordance with UUTKNS 1959 on 26 October 2009. DYMM Tuanku Muhriz continues to hold that office, together with the office of Yang di-Pertua of the Dewan under Article 19.
UUTKNS 1959 provides the only lawful means by which that office may become vacant. If it is said that the Undang have called upon His Highness to withdraw or abdicate, Article 10 requires:
(a) a full and complete enquiry by the Undang;
(b) a determination that a ground stated in Article 10 exists;
(c) the exercise of that power by persons lawfully holding the office of Undang, in the number required by Article 29; and
(d) a proclamation under Article 10(2).

For the reasons set out in this statement, none of those requirements has been met.

DYMM Tuanku Muhriz has continued to perform the functions of the office of Yang di-Pertuan Besar since 19 April 2026, and the Dewan has continued to sit with DYMM Tuanku Muhriz as Yang di-Pertua.
Accordingly, there is no vacancy in the office of Yang di-Pertuan Besar. Article 11 applies only when that office is vacant, and cannot be used to elect a successor while the office is lawfully held. DYMM Tuanku Muhriz’s tenure can be ended only in the manner provided by UUTKNS 1959. The Dewan does not recognise any other person as holding that office.

THERE IS ONLY ONE RULER OF THIS STATE

The Document treats its signatories, together with the Yang di-Pertuan Besar, as forming a “Raja majmuk” (composite Ruler) of Negeri Sembilan (the Document, paragraphs 15, 18 and 22). UUTKNS 1959 does not support that statement.
Under Article 7(1), there shall be a Yang di-Pertuan Besar for the State “to exercise the functions and powers of a Ruler in accordance with this Constitution and who shall take precedence over all other persons in the State”. The expression “His Highness” (Duli Yang Maha Mulia) means the person elected as Yang di-Pertuan Besar by the Undang to exercise the functions of Ruler under UUTKNS 1959 or any law, and as a member of the Conference of Rulers (Article 34). The order of precedence among the four Undang, the Tunku Besar Tampin and other dignitaries is determined by the Dewan, but “subject to the precedence of His Highness” (Article 30).
Article 28 does not make the four Undang and the Tunku Besar Tampin co-rulers with His Highness, and does not set aside His Highness’s precedence over all other persons in the State.
Article 160(2) of the Federal Constitution further reinforces this position, as it defines “Ruler”, in relation to Negeri Sembilan, as the Yang di-Pertuan Besar acting on his own behalf and on behalf of the four Undang and the Tunku Besar Tampin in accordance with UUTKNS 1959. It is therefore the Yang di-Pertuan Besar who acts as Ruler.

SITTING OF THE DEWAN ON 17 APRIL 2026

Contrary to the claims in the Document (paragraphs 13 and 14), DYMM Tuanku Muhriz did not interfere in the affairs of Luak Sungei Ujong at the sitting of 17 April 2026. The Dewan’s record shows the following.
(a) The matter brought before the Dewan was a complaint by representatives of the Telaga Undang of Luak Sungei Ujong, namely the Ibu Soko and Waris Klana Hulu. They had already removed Haji Mubarak bin Thahak @ Dohak from the office of Undang in accordance with the adat of that Luak, by a letter of removal submitted on 13 May 2025.
(b) DYMM Tuanku Muhriz clearly affirmed that the adat power to elect, appoint and remove the Undang rests with the Luak itself under Article 14(1) and (3), and that no member of the Dewan, “including DYMM Tuanku himself”, has power to endorse or reject such a decision of the Luak.
(c) The Dewan therefore accepted the removal as one made by the Luak in accordance with its own adat, under Article 14(3). Members’ views were sought before that conclusion was reached, and the minutes record no further objection from members when DYMM Tuanku Muhriz, as Yang di-Pertua of the Dewan, announced the Dewan’s decision to accept the removal. The Dewan did not remove any Undang, and neither did DYMM Tuanku Muhriz. The Dewan accepted the decision made by the Luak to remove the Undang of Luak Sungei Ujong.
The sitting of 17 April 2026 was therefore not an interference in the affairs of the Luak; rather the opposite. It was the Dewan performing its function under Article 16, namely receiving and advising on a decision already made by the Luak in accordance with adat.

PERSONS WHO SIGNED THE DOCUMENTS DATED 19 APRIL AND 5 SEPTEMBER 2026

On questions of adat under Article 16(1), the Dewan has advised as follows. That advice is final under Article 16(3) and remains in force:
(a) Haji Mubarak bin Thahak @ Dohak was removed from the office of Undang of Luak Sungei Ujong by his Luak, in accordance with the adat of that Luak, with effect from 13 May 2025 (advice dated 17 April 2026);
(b) Haji Maarof bin Mat Rashad was removed from the office of Undang of Luak Jelebu by his Luak, in accordance with the adat of that Luak, with effect from 31 May 2023 (advice dated 31 July 2026);
(c) Haji Abdul Rahim bin Yasin was never lawfully appointed Undang of Luak Rembau in accordance with the required adat, because his appointment was never completed through the Istiadat Menzahirkan Kejadian Undang (the ceremony formally manifesting the making of an Undang) (advice dated 31 July 2026); and
(d) Haji Badarudin bin Abdul Khalid ceased to hold the office of Dato’ Shahbandar Sungei Ujong through a Luruh Pusaka (the shedding of a hereditary title by the clan) declared by the anak waris (clan heirs) and Ibu Soko Waris di Ayer on 30 July 2026 (acknowledged on 31 July 2026).
The offices of Undang are therefore currently held as follows. Undang of Luak Sungei Ujong: YTM Dato’ Klana Petra Muhammad Faris bin Johari. Undang of Luak Rembau: YTM Dato’ Sedia Raja Haji Hassan bin Ab Hamid. Undang of Luak Johol: YTM Dato’ Johan Pahlawan Lela Perkasa Setiawan Dato’ Haji Muhammed bin Abdullah. The offices of Undang of Luak Jelebu and of Dato’ Shahbandar Sungei Ujong are currently vacant.
The Document (paragraph 27) claims that DYMM Tuanku Muhriz “appointed” replacement Undang for Rembau and Sungei Ujong. That claim is untrue. DYMM Tuanku Muhriz did not appoint any Undang and has never acted as though he were doing so. Each Undang was chosen by his Luak in accordance with that Luak’s adat under Article 16(1), and the Dewan took note of those appointments on 31 July 2026. The Document (paragraph 12) also treats the Dewan’s decision of 4 July 2025 concerning the Undang of Luak Rembau as final. It was not. On that date, the Dewan agreed to take note of Luak Rembau’s declaration of the appointment of Haji Abdul Rahim bin Yasin, and made the effective date of that appointment expressly subject to a further adat step, namely a Majlis Mengadap (formal audience) before DYMM Tuanku Muhriz, to be carried out in accordance with the adat of Luak Rembau. The Secretary of the Dewan’s notification to Haji Abdul Rahim stated clearly that he could perform the functions of Undang only within Luak Rembau and not beyond it at State level, because his appointment as Undang would be complete only after the Majlis Mengadap and the Istiadat Menzahirkan Kejadian as required by the adat of Luak Rembau. On 31 July 2026, the Dewan found that his appointment had never been completed through the Istiadat Menzahirkan Kejadian Undang.

ARTICLE 10: “FULL AND COMPLETE ENQUIRY”

Article 10(1) permits the Undang to call upon His Highness to withdraw or abdicate only “if it is considered and determined after full and complete enquiry by the Undangs” that one of the grounds stated in that Article exists. This is a condition precedent to the exercise of that power, not a formality.
The Document (paragraphs 8 and 9) states that the English word “enquiry”, as distinct from “inquiry”, means no more than the act of asking, in a closed process conducted by the Undang themselves. That statement is wrong. The English text of Article 10(1) is reinforced by the Jawi text of UUTKNS 1959. The Jawi text uses the expression “penyiasatan yang secukupnya dan sepenuhnya” (sufficient and full investigation). It does not say merely “pertanyaan” (questioning). It says “penyiasatan” (investigation). It says nothing about a process that need only be internal or closed. It requires an investigation that is both sufficient and full.
The expression contains three separate but cumulative requirements:
(a) there must be an investigation;
(b) the investigation must be sufficient in scope and in the material considered; and
(c) the investigation must be carried through to full completion before any consideration and determination is made.
The Dewan’s position is that no investigation under Article 10 has ever been conducted. The question of whether such an investigation may be conducted in closed session or in secret therefore does not arise. In any event, on the Document’s own account, what it describes does not meet the requirements of Article 10, as the following paragraphs show.
The Document itself states that the investigation took place on 5 March 2026 at a sitting of the Dewan (the Document, paragraphs 10 and 12). The Dewan is the body named by UUTKNS 1959 as the Dewan Keadilan dan Undang (The Council of the Yang di-Pertuan Besar and the Ruling Chiefs), and it may consider any matter referred to it by His Highness or by any of the four Undang and the Tunku Besar Tampin (Article 16(1)). Minutes must be kept of all its proceedings (Article 22(1)). Because the Document places the alleged investigation within the Dewan, it is the Dewan’s own record that must be examined.
Regarding what took place on 5 March 2026, the Dewan’s record shows that:
(a) no investigation of any matter touching the office of Yang di-Pertuan Besar was recorded at the sitting of 5 March 2026;
(b) DYMM Tuanku Muhriz was at no time given notice of any such investigation, or any opportunity to be heard in respect of it;
(c) no record, minutes, notes, report or findings of any investigation under Article 10 are held by the Secretary of the Dewan, and none has ever been submitted to the Dewan by anyone; and
(d) the entire sitting, including the other business before it, lasted one hour, from 10.00 am to 11.00 am.
On its own account, the Document states only that three questions were put to DYMM Tuanku Muhriz on 5 March 2026 and that a period of 45 days then elapsed. The Document produces no contemporaneous record of any of the following:
(a) written notice setting out the specific grounds relied on under Article 10 and the consequences that might follow;
(b) particulars of the allegations, and all material to be relied on;
(c) a full record of the questions put and DYMM Tuanku Muhriz’s answers;
(d) a meaningful opportunity to respond, produce documents and correct facts;
(e) any examination of other parties, witnesses or records;
(f) a record of the Undang’s deliberations and findings on each element of Article 10; or
(g) written reasons linking the evidence to the determination made.
The passage of time is not an investigation. A statement in a later instrument that an investigation was conducted is an assertion by the same persons. It is not independent proof that the requirements of Article 10 were met.
The account now given of what allegedly took place on 5 March 2026 has also been put forward late. On 17 July 2026, the Undang of Luak Johol, YTM Dato’ Haji Muhammed bin Abdullah, affirmed an affidavit in High Court proceedings commenced by himself and the other signatories of the Document (Originating Summons No. WA-25-201-07/2026). That affidavit says nothing about any investigation during the Dewan sitting of 5 March 2026. Instead, he claimed that a detailed discussion had purportedly been held at the Balai Undang Sungei Ujong concerning all the administrative and adat wrongs committed by DYMM Tuanku Muhriz ibni Almarhum Tuanku Munawir. Evidence not put forward at the time, and now put forward almost seven months after the event without any contemporaneous record, cannot be accepted. The Dewan rejects it.
The Document’s reliance on Governor Weld’s memorandum of 23 December 1885 does not assist it either. That memorandum refers to “patient enquiry and separate consultation with all parties”, that is, a patient enquiry and separate consultation with all parties. Even if the memorandum were treated as historical guidance, it points to patient examination and separate consultation with each party. It does not point to three questions without a complete record.

ARTICLE 29 DOES NOT CURE THE DEFECT

Article 29 sets the number of Undang required to exercise a power conferred on the Undang. It does not determine who lawfully holds the office of Undang. It does not validate the position of a person who has been removed from office in accordance with the adat of his Luak. Nor does it set aside the investigation requirement under Article 10.
The Document (paragraph 25) states that Article 29 is satisfied even though some signatures are disputed. That is not correct. Article 29 requires the power to be exercised by at least three Undang, or by as many of them as are living. On the Dewan’s advice (paragraph 16), only one of the persons who signed the document dated 19 April 2026 as Undang holds that office. The other three are not Undang. Further, the involvement of individuals not holding the office of Undang in the decision and in the execution of the declaration invalidated both processes and the declaration resulting from them. The Dewan has already decided that the document dated 19 April 2026 does not comply with Article 10 and has no effect.
Neither the Tunku Besar Tampin nor the Dato’ Shahbandar Sungei Ujong is an Undang, and neither has any role in the exercise of the power under Article 10.

THE 1898 AGREEMENT, ARTICLE 32 AND ARTICLE 28

The Agreement of 29 April 1898 between the Yang di-Pertuan Besar and the four Undang, together with ancient adat, forms an important part of the constitutional history of Negeri Sembilan, and the Dewan upholds it with the highest respect.
Nevertheless, that Agreement no longer serves as the sole source of constitutional rights or powers. It must be read subject to the express provisions of UUTKNS 1959 and may be given effect only to the extent that it is consistent with UUTKNS 1959 (Article 32). Article 16(1) expressly provides that the Dewan shall advise on questions of Malay adat referred to it, including “questions relating to the election or succession to or removal from or vacation of office of any of the Ruling Chiefs”. The Dewan is responsible for deciding or advising on adat matters referred to it. Failure or delay in doing so constitutes a neglect of the duty entrusted to it.
No historical document may be quoted selectively to override the written requirements of Article 10.
Article 28, by its own wording, defines the expression “Ruler” as used in Part II of UUTKNS 1959. It cannot be stretched into a general veto by the four Undang and the Tunku Besar Tampin over every function of the Yang di-Pertuan Besar. Nor can it be used to cure an act that is defective under Article 10, in Part I. In any event, any requirement for the consent of the Undang can be satisfied only by persons lawfully holding that office.

THE SIGNING OF THE PROCLAMATION BY DATO’ HAJI ISMAIL BIN LASIM ON 3 AUGUST 2026 HAS NO EFFECT

On 20 April 2026, the then Menteri Besar, Dato’ Seri Utama Haji Aminuddin bin Harun, declined to sign the proclamation under the proviso to Article 10(2). The proviso requires that a proclamation be issued “as soon as possible thereafter” under the signatures of the Undang and the Menteri Besar. In law, a proviso is a “condition precedent”. In this context, the declaration can take effect only if that condition precedent is satisfied, namely that the proclamation is issued as soon as possible under the signatures of the Undang and the Menteri Besar.

The Menteri Besar then in office was the only Menteri Besar who could take part in such a proclamation, and he declined to do so. He gave his reasons. That decision was made, the condition precedent was not satisfied, and the matter was closed. Dato’ Seri Utama Haji Aminuddin’s tenure as Menteri Besar subsequently ended after the Negeri Sembilan state election on 1 August 2026.

Dato’ Haji Ismail bin Lasim was not Menteri Besar on 19 April 2026 and was not present when the document of that date was signed. He cannot validate anything done that day. The signature he affixed on 3 August 2026, some three and a half months later and after the previous Menteri Besar’s refusal, was not a proclamation issued as soon as possible thereafter. It cannot erase that refusal. It cannot revive a proclamation that had lapsed. Nor does it remove the need to prove that the investigation, grounds, qualifications and mandatory sequence required by Article 10 existed on 19 April 2026.
Further, and in any event, the proviso to Article 10(2) requires the proclamation to be issued as soon as possible thereafter. No proclamation was issued when the instrument was presented to the Menteri Besar in April 2026, because he declined to sign it, and on reasonable grounds. The effect of that refusal was that the instrument could no longer be perfected by proclamation. It lapsed and ceased to have any effect well before 3 August 2026. A step that has lapsed cannot be revived months later by a different signatory.
The Attorney General’s Chambers has stated that the proclamation dated 19 April 2026 is invalid because the mandatory requirements of Article 10 were not complied with, and that it will not be gazetted. The Chambers has also stated that neither the Menteri Besar nor the State Executive Council has power to end or vacate the office of Yang di-Pertuan Besar unilaterally. On 9 September 2026, Dato’ Haji Ismail bin Lasim, as Menteri Besar, himself stated that the State Government’s position is that the proclamation instrument did not follow the process and procedure required by Article 10, and that it is invalid, unconstitutional and unenforceable. The State Secretary, the officer responsible for the State Government Gazette, declined to gazette the proclamation on the advice of the Attorney General’s Chambers, and no gazette concerning it has ever been issued. The requirements of Article 10 are constitutional requirements and do not depend on political interests or on who holds power. They cannot be satisfied by a change of political position after the event.
The Document also contradicts itself. It claims that DYMM Tuanku Muhriz ceased to reign on 19 April 2026 and that a successor was elected the same day. Yet it also states that the process was completed only on 3 August 2026 through the Menteri Besar’s signature. Both cannot be true. Article 11 cannot be used to elect a successor to an office that is not vacant.
There is a further contradiction. After 19 April 2026, DYMM Tuanku Muhriz dissolved the State Legislative Assembly on 5 June 2026, and the State general election followed on 1 August 2026. On 2 August 2026, the day after the election, Dato’ Haji Ismail bin Lasim took the oath of office as Menteri Besar of Negeri Sembilan before DYMM Tuanku Muhriz. On 7 August 2026, ten members of the State Executive Council took the oath of office and the oath of allegiance before DYMM Tuanku Muhriz. Both sets of oaths were taken at Istana Besar Seri Menanti before the Menteri Besar and the Executive Council members assumed their duties. On 20 August 2026, seventeen days after he purported to sign the defective proclamation, Dato’ Haji Ismail bin Lasim attended, as Menteri Besar, a sitting of the Dewan chaired by DYMM Tuanku Muhriz and briefed the Dewan on the State’s development.
The Document cannot hold both positions at once. If DYMM Tuanku Muhriz had ceased to be Yang di-Pertuan Besar on 19 April 2026, every act he performed as Ruler after that date would be void and invalid, including the dissolution of the State Legislative Assembly on 5 June 2026 and the oaths of office taken before him by the Menteri Besar and members of the State Executive Council. On that basis, Dato’ Haji Ismail bin Lasim could not have lawfully held the office of Menteri Besar on 3 August 2026, and his signature on that date could not have perfected any proclamation.

HIGH COURT INJUNCTION DATED 5 JUNE 2026

The signatories of the Document are the plaintiffs in proceedings they themselves commenced in the Seremban High Court (Originating Summons No. NA-24NCvC-240-05/2026), in which the Secretary of the Dewan and the Dewan are the first and second defendants respectively. On 5 June 2026, on the application of the Secretary of the Dewan (Enclosure 31), the High Court granted an ad interim injunction against all six plaintiffs. By paragraph (1) of that order, pending disposal of Enclosures 10 and 12 and until further order of the Court, the plaintiffs, whether by themselves, their servants, agents, representatives, nominees, appointees, employees, or any committee, body or person purportedly established, appointed or authorised by them, or otherwise howsoever, are restrained from:
(a) holding, convening, conducting, running, continuing, attending or participating in any meeting, or any meeting styling itself as a meeting of the Dewan Keadilan dan Undang Negeri Sembilan (“DKU”), including (without limitation) the Special Meeting announced for 5 June 2026 in the Plaintiffs’ Joint Media Statement dated 29 May 2026;
(b) purporting to suspend, remove, replace, interfere with and/or obstruct the First Defendant in performing his functions, duties and responsibilities as Secretary of the DKU under the Constitution of the State of Negeri Sembilan 1959;
(c) purporting to establish, appoint, authorise or mandate any further committee, person or body, or acting through any committee, person or body purportedly established, to perform, exercise or take over the powers, functions, duties and responsibilities of the Secretary of the DKU;
(d) holding themselves out, whether by correspondence, media statements or otherwise, as acting for or on behalf of the DKU;
(e) taking any step, making any decision and/or implementing any decision concerning the administration, governance, proceedings, powers and affairs of the DKU; and
(f) otherwise taking any step that alters, prejudices and/or interferes with the status quo of the administration, governance, proceedings and affairs of the DKU as it stood immediately before 21 May 2026, the date on which the Plaintiffs issued a document entitled “Sabda Memerintahkan Setiausaha Memanggil Sidang Khas Dewan Keadilan dan Undang Negeri Sembilan” (Decree Directing the Secretary to Convene a Special Sitting of the Dewan Keadilan dan Undang Negeri Sembilan).
There is only one Dewan Keadilan dan Undang in this State. The Dewan is established by UUTKNS 1959 itself (Article 16(1)), and its membership is fixed by Article 17. His Highness presides over its meetings (Article 19), minutes must be kept of all its proceedings (Article 22), and its Secretary is appointed by His Highness and serves at His Highness’s pleasure (Article 25). No member or group of members may form a separate Dewan, or exercise the Dewan’s functions outside its sittings.
No sitting of the Dewan was convened by or with the consent of DYMM Tuanku Muhriz, or through the Secretary of the Dewan, on 5 September 2026. The so-called “Special Sitting” held on that date was not a sitting of the Dewan. In the Letters dated 30 September 2026, the same persons describe it as a “Special Sitting of the YTM Ruling Chiefs of Negeri Sembilan” (Sidang Khas YTM Pembesar Memerintah Negeri Sembilan). UUTKNS 1959 establishes no such body. Nothing done or announced there constitutes advice or a decision of the Dewan, and those who took part have no authority to act in the Dewan’s name.
The so-called “Special Sitting” of 5 September 2026 was held, and the Document was issued, while the injunction was in force. Paragraph (1)(a) of the order restrains the signatories from holding, convening, conducting, running, continuing, attending or participating in any meeting, or styling any meeting as a meeting of the Dewan, and paragraph (1)(f) restrains them from altering the status quo of the Dewan’s affairs as it stood before 21 May 2026. A gathering of some members of the Dewan purporting to decide matters entrusted to the Dewan by UUTKNS 1959 does not change its character merely by being given another name. In addition, on or about 17 September 2026, Raja Norazli bin Raja Nordin received a letter from Tunku Nadzaruddin ibni Almarhum Tuanku Ja’afar purporting to remove him as Secretary of the Dewan. No one other than DYMM Tuanku Muhriz ibni Almarhum Tuanku Munawir may remove the Secretary of the Dewan. The Dewan has referred that act to its solicitors and reserves its position.

LETTERS DATED 30 SEPTEMBER 2026

The Letters are each styled a “warkah” issued by a person other than DYMM Tuanku Muhriz, “on his own behalf and on behalf of the four Undang and the Tunku Besar Tampin”, and are co-signed by the signatories of the Document. Among other things, the Letters ask the Federal authorities to withdraw the posting of the State Secretary, to give no effect to State Government Gazettes issued in the name of DYMM Tuanku Muhriz, and not to issue any instrument in the name of the Yang di-Pertuan Besar without their approval. The Dewan rejects those requests for the following reasons.
Both letters rest entirely on the documents dated 19 April 2026 and 5 September 2026. For the reasons set out in this statement, those documents have no effect. DYMM Tuanku Muhriz remains Yang di-Pertuan Besar, and the Dewan does not recognise any other person as holding that office (paragraph 9). The title of Yang di-Pertuan Besar is held by DYMM Tuanku Muhriz alone.
The Letters are also co-signed by the signatories as “Pembesar Memerintah” (Ruling Chiefs). On the Dewan’s advice (paragraph 16), three of those who signed as Undang do not hold that office. They cannot act, or give any consent, as “the four Undang and the Tunku Besar Tampin” (“Ruling Chiefs”).
The posting of the State Secretary is a matter within the jurisdiction of the relevant Service Commission (Article 37(1)). The Dewan notes only that the Letters seek his removal after he declined to gazette the proclamation (paragraph 39). The requests that the Federal authorities give no effect to instruments issued in the name of DYMM Tuanku Muhriz, and that future gazettes be submitted for the approval of persons without lawful authority, have no basis in UUTKNS 1959 and should be given no effect. In the Dewan’s carefully considered view, the issuance of the Letters is an act of derhaka (treason against the Ruler) and may also give rise to a criminal offence under the Penal Code.

DIRECTIONS TO PUBLIC OFFICERS

The Document directs public officers to disregard the commands, appointments and directions of Duli Yang Maha Mulia Tuanku Muhriz. That direction has no basis and risks undermining the administration of the State. The signatories of the documents dated 19 April 2026 and 5 September 2026 have no power to issue directions to the State Secretary or to any State officer.
Public officers are bound to act in accordance with UUTKNS 1959, Federal and State law, court orders, the decisions of lawful authorities and the official chain of command. They are not bound by directions from persons whose own positions and claims are in dispute. The same applies to Federal Government officers serving in this State, and to the Federal authorities responsible for printing and publishing the State Government Gazette.

POSITION OF THE DEWAN

Accordingly, the Dewan:
(a) maintains its decision of 31 July 2026 that the document dated 19 April 2026 does not comply with Article 10, is unconstitutional and has no effect, and that no lawful process has caused Duli Yang Maha Mulia Tuanku Muhriz ibni Almarhum Tuanku Munawir to cease holding the office of Yang di-Pertuan Besar;
(b) continues to recognise DYMM Tuanku Muhriz as Yang di-Pertuan Besar of Negeri Sembilan and Yang di-Pertua of the Dewan under Article 19, does not recognise any vacancy in that office, and does not recognise any other person as holding it;
(c) calls upon all public servants, State and Federal, to continue administering the State in accordance with the law and the lawful chain of command;
(d) requires any party claiming that a “full and complete enquiry” was conducted to produce the complete record of that process before a forum of competent jurisdiction; and
(e) reminds all parties to respect proceedings before the courts, to preserve public order, and not to use adat as a pretext for setting aside UUTKNS 1959.
The Dewan’s advice concerning the offices of the four Undang and the Tunku Besar Tampin (“Ruling Chiefs”) remains in force and is final under Article 16(3) of UUTKNS 1959. Matters relating to the sitting of 17 April 2026 are the subject of pending proceedings in the High Court. The Dewan will address them in Court and makes no further comment on them here.

CONCLUSION

The Dewan respectfully requests the Federal Government and Federal authorities, the Governments of all States, the officers of Negeri Sembilan and the people of Negeri Sembilan to take note of this statement. The Dewan also requests that they give no effect to the Document dated 2 October 2026, to the Letters dated 30 September 2026, or to the documents dated 19 April 2026 and 5 September 2026 on which they rest.
The Dewan further respectfully requests that the enforcement authorities, in particular the Royal Malaysia Police (PDRM) and the Attorney General’s Chambers, take appropriate steps to investigate and prosecute the criminal offences committed through the actions described above. This is important so that those persons do not continue to take actions and make statements contrary to the constitution and the law that will confuse the State administration and the public.
The institution of adat does not belong to any individual or group. It is a trust, to be discharged in accordance with the text of UUTKNS 1959, the lawful record and justice to all parties. The Dewan stands ready at all times to perform the functions entrusted to it by UUTKNS 1959, and any question of adat within the scope of those functions may be brought before it through the proper channels. Adat dijunjung, pusaka dipelihara (Adat upheld, heritage preserved).

Issued on the direction of the Dewan Keadilan dan Undang Negeri Sembilan Darul Khusus.

SECRETARY
DEWAN KEADILAN DAN UNDANG
NEGERI SEMBILAN DARUL KHUSUS
4 October 2026, corresponding to 21 Rabiulakhir 1448H

This is an unofficial translation prepared by this publication and carries no legal standing. The original Malay statement runs to 17 pages. To keep this page readable, the English translation appears first and the original Malay pages are reproduced in full at the bottom. Where there is any difference in wording or interpretation, the Malay original is authoritative.

DKU Statement, 4 October

6.51MB ∙ PDF file

Download

If you are new to this Substack and are not sure where to begin, visit our Start Here page, where we list all our articles organised by theme.

Start Here

Joint “Undang Yang Empat” and Tunku Besar Tampin Media Statement, 2 October 2026

Anak Nogori — Fri, 02 Oct 2026 14:00:00 GMT

What follows is a translation of the official statement issued on 2 October 2026 in the name of the Undang Yang Empat ¹ and the Tunku Besar Tampin. The allegations in it are the signatories' alone. The Dewan Keadilan dan Undang (DKU) responded to this statement on 4 October 2026 and asked that no effect be given to it.

The original Malay statement runs to 12 pages. To keep this page readable, the English translation appears first and the original Malay pages are reproduced in full at the bottom. Where there is any difference in wording or interpretation, the Malay original is authoritative.

OFFICIAL STATEMENT

THE UNDANG YANG EMPAT OF NEGERI SEMBILAN DARUL KHUSUS
NOTIFICATION CONCERNING THE DEPOSITION OF DULI YANG MAHA MULIA TUANKU MUHRIZ IBNI ALMARHUM TUANKU MUNAWIR AS THE 11TH YANG DI-PERTUAN BESAR OF NEGERI SEMBILAN
pursuant to Article 10 of the Constitution of the State of Negeri Sembilan 1959

To:
The Federal Government and Federal authorities;
The Governments and authorities of all States; and
All the people of Negeri Sembilan and Malaysia.

A. PURPOSE OF THE STATEMENT

This statement is issued to formally announce that DYMM Tuanku Muhriz ibni Almarhum Tuanku Munawir ceased to be Yang di-Pertuan Besar of Negeri Sembilan with effect from 19 April 2026, by Sabda (decree) of the Undang Yang Empat under Article 10(1)(b) of the Constitution of the State of Negeri Sembilan 1959 (UUTKNS), and that DYMM Tuanku Nadzaruddin ibni Almarhum Tuanku Jaafar was elected on the same day as the 12th Yang di-Pertuan Besar of Negeri Sembilan under Article 11.
Administratively, the proclamation of the deposition of Tuanku Muhriz ibni Almarhum Tuanku Munawir, dated 19 April 2026, was completed on 3 August 2026, when the Menteri Besar of Negeri Sembilan, YAB Dato Haji Ismail bin Lasim, affixed his signature.
It should be noted that the UUTKNS does not require the deposition and election of a Yang di-Pertuan Besar to be gazetted. Article 10(2) imposes only a constitutional obligation that decisions under Article 10 be made known to the public by proclamation, and that Proclamation is not subject to gazettement.
This statement also sets out the constitutional basis of the decision, the grave wrongdoing that led to it, and the continuing defiance that followed, so that the Federal authorities, the States and the people understand the true position in law.

B. THE NEGERI SEMBILAN AGREEMENT OF 1898: BASIC STRUCTURE AND ANCIENT CONSTITUTION

The constitution of Negeri Sembilan is not a colonial creation. Its foundation is the Agreement of 29 April 1898 (8 Zulhijjah 1315H) between the Yang di-Pertuan Besar of Sri Menanti and the Undang Yang Empat. Its terms were restated and resealed in the Agreement of 1 Safar 1352, corresponding to 16 May 1934, between the Yang di-Pertuan Besar and the Undang Yang Empat. In 1956, the Ruling Chiefs submitted the 1898 Agreement to the Reid Commission as the cornerstone of the State’s constitution, and insisted that the constitutional principles of Negeri Sembilan must remain as provided in that Agreement.
Article 32 of the UUTKNS expressly preserves this ancient constitution: except as stated, the First Part does not affect the ancient constitution and ancient custom of Negeri Sembilan, and both continue in force as before so far as they are not inconsistent. The 1898 Agreement, as affirmed in 1934, is therefore the basic structure of the UUTKNS, and not merely a historical document.
Three terms of the 1898 Agreement are central to this statement:

(a) Clauses 2 and 7: it is the Undang Yang Empat who elect and install the Yang di-Pertuan Besar according to the ancient constitution.

(b) Clause 3: the Yang di-Pertuan Besar, under the old constitution, may not interfere in State custom and hukum syarak (Islamic law), and the affairs of each Luak are not subject to His Majesty’s command.

(c) Clause 4: the Yang di-Pertuan Besar will not entertain complaints or appeals by officials or people of a Luak against their Undang.

The prohibition on interference in the affairs of the Luak is a pantang larang (taboo) with a bloody history. Throughout the 19th century, interference in the election and internal affairs of the Luak provoked power struggles, feuds and bloodshed that nearly broke the Negeri Sembilan confederacy apart. Governor Weld’s memorandum of 23 December 1885 itself refers to “the old Rembau feuds, and political and dynastic antagonisms”, and to long-standing disputes between the Yam Tuan (the Yang di-Pertuan Besar) and the Datohs and Luak chiefs, which could only be resolved through separate negotiation with every party. The 1898 Agreement was the final settlement of that history: the Yang di-Pertuan Besar is elected by the Undangs, and in return His Majesty does not interfere in the affairs of the Luak. Breaching this condition means demolishing the foundation that unites Negeri Sembilan.

C. MANIFESTATIONS OF THE BASIC STRUCTURE IN THE FIRST PART OF THE UUTKNS

The guarantees of the 1898 Agreement are codified in the First Part of the UUTKNS, including:

(a) Article 10: if, after “full and complete enquiry by the Undangs”, the Yang di-Pertuan Besar is found to have, among other things, “deliberately disregarded the provisions of this Constitution” or committed an “overt act detrimental to the sanctity, honour and dignity of a Yang Dipertuan Besar”, the Undangs may decree His Majesty’s deposition; and His Majesty “shall thereupon cease to be Yang Dipertuan Besar” (Article 10(2)).

(b) Article 11: when the Yang di-Pertuan Besar ceases to hold office under Article 10(1)(b), it becomes the duty of the Undangs to elect a new Yang di-Pertuan Besar.

(c) Article 29: the powers of the Undangs under the First Part are deemed validly exercised by at least three Undangs, or by however many Undangs there are at the time. The powers under Articles 10 and 11 therefore cannot be paralysed.

(d) Articles 14 and 16(3): Undangs are elected, and may only be removed, according to the custom of the Luak, and the advice of the Dewan Keadilan dan Undang (DKU) on the election or removal of an Undang is final and cannot be questioned.

(e) Articles 28 and 79: “Ruler” in the Second Part means the Yang di-Pertuan Besar together with the Ruling Chiefs; and the prerogatives, powers and jurisdiction of the Yang di-Pertuan Besar and the Ruling Chiefs are preserved equally. The Undang is raja (ruler) in his Luak; the Yang di-Pertuan Besar has no power to elect, dismiss or replace an Undang.

D. THE MEANING OF “ENQUIRY” AND ITS CONDUCT ON 5 MARCH 2026

The authoritative text of Article 10 uses the word “enquiry”, not “inquiry”. “Enquiry” is the act of asking; “inquiry” usually refers to a formal investigation such as a commission or tribunal. In the tradition of Negeri Sembilan, “enquiry” is a process of consultation and muafakat (consensus), as Weld used the word in 1885 for the settlement between the Yam Tuan and the Datohs, as distinct from “investigation”, which he used for administrative examination.
An ENQUIRY under Article 10 is therefore an internal and closed siasatan (inquiry) by the Undangs themselves, conducted by putting questions directly to the Yang di-Pertuan Besar and giving His Majesty the opportunity to answer, so as to preserve His Majesty’s dignity and spare him aib (public disgrace). It requires no external tribunal, public hearing or trial-like procedure. “Full and complete” refers to the scope of consideration, not to formality.
This ENQUIRY was conducted on 5 March 2026. It was stated clearly that an ENQUIRY under Article 10 was taking place, and YTM Dato’ Klana Petra Dato’ Haji Mubarak bin Thahak, Undang of Luak Sungei Ujong, put three questions directly to His Majesty:

(a) His Majesty’s interference in the affairs of Luak Rembau, by commanding the State Secretary and the State Legal Adviser to interview the group objecting to the election of the Undang of Luak Rembau, when his position had been confirmed by the DKU on 4 July 2025;

(b) His Majesty’s failure to consult the Ruling Chiefs, as part of the Raja majmuk (composite Ruler), before attending meetings of the Conference of Rulers; and

(c) the delay in the appointment of the State Mufti caused by His Majesty’s attempt to put forward a candidate without a joint process.

The ENQUIRY was followed by a period of deliberation of 45 days before the determination was made on 19 April 2026.

E. GRAVE WRONGDOING: INTERFERENCE IN THE CUSTOMARY AFFAIRS OF THE LUAK

Luak Rembau. On 4 July 2025, the DKU, chaired by Tuanku Muhriz himself, accepted and recognised YTM Dato’ Sedia Raja Dato’ Haji Abdul Rahim bin Haji Yasin as the 22nd Undang of Luak Rembau. That advice is final under Article 16(3). Yet the agenda of the DKU meeting (First Sitting of 2026) on 5 March 2026 included the “Laporan Dapatan Kertas Siasatan Isu Pelantikan Undang Luak Rembau ke-22: Aduan dan Bantahan” (Report of Findings of the Investigation Paper on the Appointment of the 22nd Undang of Luak Rembau: Complaints and Objections), together with confirmation of the minutes of the meeting of 4 July 2025 in the same agenda. This evidence is in writing and has not been denied: a final decision was reopened on complaints from the people of the Luak, precisely the act prohibited by clauses 3 and 4 of the 1898 Agreement, with full knowledge of its finality. The reopening was objected to at that meeting.
Luak Sungei Ujong. After the ENQUIRY of 5 March 2026, when His Majesty was on full notice, His Majesty commanded the Secretary of the DKU to convene a Special DKU Meeting on 17 April 2026 on only two days’ notice (letter dated 15 April 2026), for the purpose of “mendengar laporan aduan daripada Telaga Undang Luak Sungei Ujong” (hearing a complaint report from the Telaga Undang (the lineage from which the Undang is drawn) of Luak Sungei Ujong) against YTM Dato’ Haji Mubarak, the Undang who led the ENQUIRY into His Majesty. The Ibu Soko and Waris Klana Hulu (customary lineage title-holders and heirs of Luak Sungei Ujong) who were invited were a title-holder who had been sanctioned and heirs who had been sanctioned under the custom of the Luak, and had no valid customary standing. The notice was addressed neither to the Undang of Luak Sungei Ujong who was its subject, nor to the Undang of Luak Rembau.
At the meeting of 17 April 2026, the majority of members present, namely YTM the Undang of Luak Johol, YTM Tunku Besar Tampin and YAM Dato’ Shahbandar Sungei Ujong, opposed the motion. The only support came from YAM Tunku Besar Seri Menanti, His Majesty’s son. There was no decision of the Dewan to strip Dato’ Haji Mubarak of office. Nevertheless, His Majesty commanded YAB Dato’ Seri Utama Haji Aminuddin bin Harun, then Menteri Besar, to issue a media statement the same day stating that the DKU had “menasihatkan penerimaan pemberhentian” (advised acceptance of the termination of) Dato’ Haji Mubarak. That claim was denied in writing, under seal, by the Undang Yang Empat on 20 April 2026. To date, the minutes of the meeting of 17 April 2026 have never been produced, although Article 22 requires them.
On these facts, the Undang Yang Empat maintain that Tuanku Muhriz is proven to have interfered in the affairs of Luak Rembau and Luak Sungei Ujong, and acted to bring down the rulers of both Luak, namely the Ruling Chiefs who, under Article 28, form the composite Ruler of Negeri Sembilan together with the Yang di-Pertuan Besar.

F. WHY THIS UNILATERAL ACTION IS THE GRAVEST OF WRONGS

The actions of Tuanku Muhriz are not a procedural error. They are a breach of the condition on which the very existence of the throne of the Yang di-Pertuan Besar rests:

(a) It breaches the condition of installation. The Yang di-Pertuan Besar is elected by the Undangs on condition that His Majesty does not interfere in the affairs of the Luak (clauses 2, 3 and 7 of the 1898 Agreement). Using the throne to bring down an Undang, His Majesty’s own elector, destroys the condition on which that throne rests.

(b) It inverts the structure of power. The UUTKNS places the power to assess the Yang di-Pertuan Besar with the Undangs (Article 10), and not the reverse. No provision gives the Yang di-Pertuan Besar power to dismiss an Undang (Article 14(3)).

(c) It sets aside final advice. Articles 16(3) and 40(1A) require the advice of the DKU to be followed. His Majesty reopened final advice on Rembau, and announced “advice” on Sungei Ujong that was never decided.

(d) It bypasses the composite Ruler. The question of the office of an Undang is a function relating to Malay custom under Article 40(2)(d), which must be exercised together with at least three Undangs (Article 28(2)). Undang support for the motion of 17 April 2026 was nil.

(e) It was done deliberately. It occurred after the ENQUIRY, on full notice, repeatedly, and against the Undang leading the ENQUIRY, two days before the Article 10 determination was made.

These acts satisfy both grounds in Article 10(1): deliberately disregarding the provisions of the Constitution, and an overt act detrimental to the sanctity, honour and dignity of the office of Yang di-Pertuan Besar.

G. BREACH OF ARTICLE 28(2): GOVERNING WITHOUT THE COMPOSITE RULER

In Negeri Sembilan, the “Ruler” is not the Yang di-Pertuan Besar alone. Article 28(1) of the UUTKNS provides that “the expression Ruler wherever it occurs in the Second Part of the Constitution shall mean His Highness and the Ruling Chiefs who are available and holding office at the material time”. For discretionary powers under Article 40(2), Article 28(2) imposes a stricter requirement: “Ruler” means “His Highness and at least three of the four Undangs or, if there be only three Undangs holding office at the time of the exercise of such discretion, at least two of them”.
The discretionary powers under Article 40(2) cover the core of State sovereignty: (a) the appointment of the Menteri Besar; (b) withholding consent to the dissolution of the State Legislative Assembly; (c) requesting a meeting of the Conference of Rulers concerning the privileges, position, honours and dignities of the Rulers or religious ceremonies; (d) functions as Head of the Religion of Islam or relating to Malay custom; and (e) appointments to Malay customary titles. The proviso to Article 28(2) allows the Yang di-Pertuan Besar to act “alone” in only two narrow matters: the appointment of a Regent, where this does not affect the prerogatives, powers and jurisdiction of the Ruling Chiefs in their respective territories, and the regulation of the palace. Neither touches the office of Undang, Islamic affairs, Malay custom or the Conference of Rulers.
This requirement is not a technicality. It was demanded by the Ruling Chiefs themselves before the Reid Commission in 1956: that “the Yam Tuan and the Undangs should collectively constitute the Ruler” and that “the Ruler should be required to obtain the concurrence of at least three of the four Undangs”. Article 28(2) is the modern constitutional rendering of the 1898 Agreement. It is reinforced by Article 35, which vests the executive authority of the State in “the Ruler” and requires all executive action to be expressed “in the name of the Ruler”; and by Article 36(1), which vests the appointment of the Menteri Besar in “the Ruler”, meaning the composite Ruler and not the Yang di-Pertuan Besar alone.
Tuanku Muhriz repeatedly set aside the requirement of Article 28(2) in the governance of the State:

(a) The office of Undang and Luak custom. The question of the office of an Undang is a function “relating to the custom of the Malays” under Article 40(2)(d). His Majesty reopened the position of the Undang of Luak Rembau and announced the termination of the Undang of Luak Sungei Ujong without the support of a single Undang. His Majesty also commanded the State Secretary and the State Legal Adviser to interview parties objecting to the Undang of Luak Rembau, whereas under Article 37(2) both are the administrative officer and the legal adviser of the State Government, and not instruments for investigating complaints by the people of a Luak against their Undang, which clause 4 of the 1898 Agreement prohibits.

(b) Islamic affairs. The appointment of the Mufti is a function of the Head of the Religion of Islam under Article 40(2)(d), which must be exercised together with at least three Undangs. His Majesty’s attempt to put forward a candidate without a joint process caused the appointment of the State Mufti to be held up. Before the Reid Commission, the Dato’ Klana stated that “The Mufti was appointed by all the Undangs and not by the Yang di Pertuan Besar”.

(c) Meetings of the Conference of Rulers. Article 40(1A) refers to the functions of the Ruler “as a member of the Conference of Rulers”. Because “Ruler” in the Second Part is the Yang di-Pertuan Besar together with the Ruling Chiefs (Article 28(1)), the Yang di-Pertuan Besar attends the Conference of Rulers as the representative of the composite Ruler of Negeri Sembilan, and not in a personal capacity. A request for a meeting of the Conference of Rulers under Article 40(2)(c) also requires at least three Undangs. Tuanku Muhriz attended meetings of the Conference of Rulers without first consulting the Ruling Chiefs, a matter put directly to His Majesty at the ENQUIRY of 5 March 2026.

The consequences of these breaches of Article 28(2) are very serious:

(a) Action without constitutional basis. Article 40(2) functions exercised by the Yang di-Pertuan Besar alone are not acts of the “Ruler” of Negeri Sembilan. They have no effect under the Constitution, and cast doubt on the validity of every decision made on that basis.

(b) Negeri Sembilan’s voice at the Conference of Rulers carries no mandate. A position taken to the Conference of Rulers without consulting the Ruling Chiefs is not the position of the Ruler of Negeri Sembilan. This compromises the participation of Negeri Sembilan in important federal matters under Article 38 of the Federal Constitution, and leaves the Conference of Rulers receiving positions to which the composite Ruler of this State never agreed.

(c) The prerogatives of the Ruling Chiefs are eroded. Article 79 preserves the prerogatives, powers and jurisdiction of the Yang di-Pertuan Besar and the Ruling Chiefs equally. Unilateral rule reduces the Undangs to ornaments and destroys the balance guaranteed by the 1898 Agreement.

(d) The State administration is dragged in. By using the State Secretary, the State Legal Adviser and the Menteri Besar to carry out unilateral action, His Majesty drew the machinery of government into breach of the Constitution.

These repeated and deliberate breaches of Article 28(2), read together with the interference in the affairs of the Luak, amount to having “deliberately disregarded the provisions of this Constitution” within the meaning of Article 10(1). After 19 April 2026 the position is clearer still: Tuanku Muhriz is no longer part of the “Ruler” under Article 28, and has no right to attend the Conference of Rulers or to exercise any function of the Ruler on behalf of Negeri Sembilan.

H. DECISION OF THE UNDANG YANG EMPAT ON 19 APRIL 2026

On 19 April 2026 (1 Zulkaedah 1447H), at the Balai Undang (official hall of the Undang) of Luak Sungei Ujong, all four Undangs, of Sungei Ujong, Jelebu, Johol and Rembau, unanimously signed and sealed the Sabda Relating to Article 10, decreeing the deposition of Tuanku Muhriz and stripping His Majesty of all sovereignty, rights, powers and precedence, with immediate effect. On the same day, by the Sabda Relating to Article 11, the Undang Yang Empat elected DYMM Tuanku Nadzaruddin ibni Almarhum Tuanku Jaafar as the 12th Yang di-Pertuan Besar. Both Sabda were witnessed by YAM Dato’ Shahbandar Sungei Ujong.
The Sabda satisfies Article 29 in every scenario. Other wrongs committed by Tuanku Muhriz were also examined and adjudged, not limited to those set out here. It was signed by four Undangs. If any one of them is disputed, three remain. Even if both the Undangs of Rembau and Sungei Ujong are disputed, the Undangs of Jelebu and Johol, being however many Undangs there are on the theory of the disputing party, signed it. No one may profit from his own wrong in order to paralyse Article 10.

I. DEFIANCE AFTER 19 APRIL 2026 AND THE INVALID REPLACEMENT OF UNDANGS

Tuanku Muhriz has not complied with the Sabda of the Undang Yang Empat. Although His Majesty ceased to be Yang di-Pertuan Besar on 19 April 2026, he has continued to act as though still on the throne, including by convening a DKU meeting on 31 July 2026 without the attendance of the Undang Yang Empat, the Tunku Besar Tampin or the Dato’ Shahbandar.
More gravely, after 20 June 2026, Tuanku Muhriz appointed replacements for the Undang of Luak Rembau and the Undang of Luak Sungei Ujong, the two Undangs who signed the Sabda deposing him. Those appointments are void from the outset on four grounds, each of which is sufficient on its own:

(a) they were made by a party no longer holding the office of Yang di-Pertuan Besar;

(b) the office of Undang was never vacant, because the dismissal of the incumbent was invalid;

(d) there was no valid DKU advice and no action by the composite Ruler (Articles 16(3) and 28(2)).

These acts have thrown custom in Luak Rembau and Luak Sungei Ujong into disarray, created de facto “Undangs” with no customary or constitutional legitimacy, and divided the people of the Luak. This is the outcome the 1898 Agreement was designed to prevent. YTM Dato’ Haji Abdul Rahim bin Haji Yasin and YTM Dato’ Haji Mubarak bin Thahak remain the lawful Undangs of their respective Luak.

J. PROCLAMATION COMPLETE, BUT BREACHES CONTINUING

The proviso to Article 10(2) requires a proclamation under the hands of the Undangs and the Menteri Besar. The Undang Yang Empat signed it on 19 April 2026. On 3 August 2026, at Istana Laguna Biru, Port Dickson, YAB Dato’ Haji Ismail bin Lasim, whose appointment as Menteri Besar was consented to by DYMM Tuanku Nadzaruddin together with the Ruling Chiefs, signed the instrument of proclamation. The meeting of the State Executive Council (EXCO) also minuted the decision of the Undang Yang Empat for implementation. The instrument of proclamation was then announced at a Special Sitting on 5 September 2026, together with a sabda to the State Secretary and the State administration to comply with it immediately.
Accordingly, the deposition of Tuanku Muhriz has been complete in law since 19 April 2026, and complete administratively since 3 August 2026. The deposition has also never been challenged in court by Tuanku Muhriz. Even so, the series of acts by which Tuanku Muhriz continues to exercise the functions of Yang di-Pertuan Besar persists, in continuing breach of Article 10(2) of the UUTKNS.

K. THIS IS NO LONGER A CRISIS OF THE THRONE, BUT A CRISIS OF DEFIANCE

The Undang Yang Empat maintain that there is no longer any crisis of the throne in Negeri Sembilan. The question of the throne has been fully determined under Articles 10, 11 and 29 of the UUTKNS, and directions giving it administrative effect have been issued by the executive branch of the State. The lawful Yang di-Pertuan Besar of Negeri Sembilan is DYMM Tuanku Nadzaruddin ibni Almarhum Tuanku Jaafar.
What is taking place now is the refusal of Tuanku Muhriz to step aside and to stop exercising the sovereign functions of the Ruler of Negeri Sembilan. This defiance has harmed, and will continue to harm, the administration of the State and the welfare of the people:

(a) Administrative officers in confusion. Civil servants are placed in a dilemma of loyalty between the lawful Ruler and a former Yang di-Pertuan Besar who refuses to step aside, undermining obedience to the lawful Ruler of Negeri Sembilan.

(b) Policy and appointments disrupted. Many policies, appointments and activities of the State Executive Council cannot be carried out smoothly while the validity of royal consent and commands is in question.

(c) The business of the State Legislative Assembly at risk. The functions of the Ruler in relation to the State Legislative Assembly, including summoning, assent and legislative business, are at risk of being compromised when two parties claim the same power.

(d) Customary and religious institutions harmed. The invalid replacement of Undangs divides the Luak, while Islamic affairs requiring the joint action of the composite Ruler are also disrupted.

(e) The standing of Negeri Sembilan at federal level harmed. So long as Tuanku Muhriz continues to claim to represent Negeri Sembilan, including at the Conference of Rulers, there is a risk of unlawful positions being taken in the name of this State, contrary to Article 28 of the UUTKNS.

(f) Public and investor confidence falling. Prolonged uncertainty undermines the stability of the State and the welfare of the people.

L. NOTIFICATION AND CALL

Accordingly, the Undang Yang Empat hereby notify and call upon:

(a) the Federal Government and Federal authorities to take note that the lawful Yang di-Pertuan Besar of Negeri Sembilan is DYMM Tuanku Nadzaruddin ibni Almarhum Tuanku Jaafar, because Tuanku Muhriz has been fully deposed in accordance with the UUTKNS;

(b) YAB the Prime Minister and the Attorney General to take note that the Ruler of Negeri Sembilan is the Yang di-Pertuan Besar together with the Ruling Chiefs, and not the Yang di-Pertuan Besar alone, and accordingly to advise Federal agencies to respect the decision of the Undang Yang Empat under Articles 10 and 11 of the UUTKNS;

(c) the Governments of all States to take note of the distinctive monarchical system under the Constitution of Negeri Sembilan;

(d) the State Secretary and all civil servants of Negeri Sembilan to comply with the Article 10 proclamation and not to carry out any command, appointment or directive issued by Tuanku Muhriz after 19 April 2026; and

(e) all the people of Negeri Sembilan to remain calm, uphold custom and the Constitution, and give their allegiance to the lawful Yang di-Pertuan Besar.

The Undang Yang Empat did not take this decision lightly. It was taken with a heavy heart, to preserve the Constitution, adat pusaka (inherited custom) and the unity of Negeri Sembilan, built on the agreements and sacrifices of our forebears. Adat dijunjung, pusaka dipelihara (custom upheld, heritage preserved).

Issued on 2 October 2026, corresponding to 20 Rabi’ulakhir 1448H, by Yang Teramat Mulia the Undang Yang Empat and the Tunku Besar Tampin.

"Undang" Statement, 2 October

9.6MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Footnotes:

The allegations in this statement are those of its signatories. The DKU’s response of 4 October 2026 sets out its position on each of the claims above.

If you are new to this Substack and are not sure where to begin, visit our Start Here page, where we list all our articles organised by theme.

Start Here

Anak Nogori Weekly Round-Up (21-27 September, 2026)

Anak Nogori — Mon, 28 Sep 2026 02:00:51 GMT

What happened last week

21 September 2026, Mon: Menteri Besar Ismail Lasim said the revocation of the ten EXCO appointments announced by the Yang di-Pertuan Besar the previous night was unconstitutional, because he had neither been consulted nor advised it under Article 38(5) of the Negeri Sembilan Constitution 1959. He argued that Article 38(5) must be read together with Articles 38(4) and 40(1), said the existing EXCO remained valid, and declined to submit a new list (FMT, 21 September 2026, Malay Mail, 21 September 2026).

22 September 2026, Tues: Ismail announced the immediate suspension of State Secretary Mohd Zafir Ibrahim and State Legal Adviser Muzalmah Mustapha Kamal, following what he described as a meeting of the State Executive Council, and named State Financial Officer Masri Razali and lawyer Fahmi Adilah to carry out their duties in the interim. The Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC) said the same day that the State Executive Council has no legal authority to suspend either officer, because appointments to both posts, including suspensions, fall to the relevant service commissions under Article 37 (Bernama, 22 September 2026, Malaysiakini, 22 September 2026).

22 September 2026, Tues: A four-page joint media statement was issued in the names of Muhammed Abdullah, Undang of Luak Johol; the removed Undangs Mubarak Dohak (Luak Sungei Ujong), Maarof Mat Rashad (Luak Jelebu) and Abdul Rahim Yasin (Luak Rembau); and the Tunku Besar Tampin, Tunku Syed Razman Tunku Syed Idrus Al-Qadri. The signatories claimed the 19 April declaration as their own act under Articles 7, 10 and 11, called the account that the Menteri Besar and EXCO had deposed Tuanku Muhriz fitnah jahat (malicious slander), and urged the Prime Minister and the AGC to stay out of the state’s affairs. They accused Tuanku Muhriz of acting in bad faith (not pure of heart), of sabotage and obstruction. The statement also called on civil servants to pledge loyalty to Tunku Nadzaruddin (The Star, 22 September 2026).

23 September 2026, Wed: A planned audience at which Ismail and the ten members whose appointments had been revoked were to present themselves to Tunku Nadzaruddin was called off. A source told Berita Harian that the organisers cancelled it on safety advice from the authorities (Malay Mail, 23 September 2026). Emirul Sarifudin Nor Azmi, a lawyer for Tunku Nadzaruddin and the chieftains supporting him, said that the group had been kept inside the compound of the Sungei Ujong ceremonial hall by a police cordon (Malaysiakini, 23 September 2026).

23 September 2026, Wed: Anwar described the attempt by the Menteri Besar and EXCO to remove Tuanku Muhriz as “rude and uncivilised”, and said that decisions of the Undang must follow the established procedures and that their decisions are not absolute (Malay Mail, 23 September 2026).

24 September 2026, Thurs: The revocation was published in the Negeri Sembilan Government Gazette as N.S. P.U. 18, naming all ten members, citing Article 38(5) and the breach of the pledge of allegiance they took on 7 August, and taking effect from 20 September (FMT, 24 September 2026, Malaysiakini, 24 September 2026).

24 September 2026, Thurs: Ismail told a press conference that EXCO members had been barred from Wisma Negeri, adding that he himself had not been blocked (The Star, 24 September 2026). Malaysiakini reported that the State Secretary and State Legal Adviser were continuing their duties in line with directions from the Chief Secretary to the Government and the AGC (Malaysiakini, 24 September 2026).

24 September 2026, Thurs: Ismail issued a seven-page media statement claiming that the crisis had been inherited from the previous state administration. The statement also said the state government would respect any final decision lawfully made by the institutions with jurisdiction under adat and the Constitution (Berita Harian, 24 September 2026, UtusanMelayuPlus, 24 September 2026).

25 September 2026, Fri: Rais Yatim was charged under Section 4(1)(b) of the Sedition Act 1948. The charge concerns remarks allegedly made at a hotel in Simpang Ampat, Alor Gajah, on 5 June, referring to Tunku Nadzaruddin as the 12th Yang di-Pertuan Besar and calling for loyalty to him. Rais pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Judge Raja Noor Adilla Raja Mahyaldin allowed bail of RM8,000 and the case returns for mention on 27 October (Bernama, 25 September 2026, Malay Mail, 25 September 2026).

25 September 2026, Fri: The five signatories of the 22 September statement held a press conference in Seremban at which they repeated its main points, including the warning to the Prime Minister against using federal agencies in ways they said would paralyse the state administration (FMT, 25 September 2026, The Edge, 25 September 2026).

25 September 2026, Fri: The names and photographs of the ten members whose appointments had been revoked were taken down from the Negeri Sembilan government’s official portal, which now lists Ismail as the only member of the State Executive Council (Berita Harian, 25 September 2026, Sinar Harian, 25 September 2026).

26 September 2026, Sat: Attorney General Mohd Dusuki Mokhtar said that the revocation of the ten appointments was valid under Article 38(5), which provides that an EXCO member other than the Menteri Besar holds office at the pleasure of the Yang di-Pertuan Besar, and described the gazette as standard procedure. He added that the AGC had consistently held that the Menteri Besar and EXCO had no unilateral power to remove the Yang di-Pertuan Besar or declare the office vacant (Sinar Harian, 26 September 2026, FMT, 26 September 2026, The Sun, 26 September 2026).

27 September 2026, Sun: G25, a group of retired senior civil servants, called on Ismail to resign, saying he had lost credibility and moral authority. The group pointed to his signature on the proclamation on 3 August, his later claim that he signed under duress, and his recognition of the proclamation as valid on 16 September. It cited the DKU’s position that the 19 April proclamation was void and the AGC’s view that neither the Menteri Besar nor the EXCO could remove the Ruler, and urged enforcement agencies to act against those involved (FMT, 27 September 2026, Malay Mail, 27 September 2026).

27 September 2026, Sun: Inspector-General of Police Mohd Khalid Ismail confirmed that police would begin recording statements from the ten EXCO members whose appointments had been revoked. He said numerous police reports had been lodged over the crisis, that other individuals, including potential witnesses, would also be interviewed, and that police did not rule out the Sedition Act or other provisions. He added that the investigation papers would go to the AGC, which will decide whether to prosecute (Bernama, 27 September 2026, Malay Mail, 27 September 2026).

27 September 2026, Sun: BN chairman Ahmad Zahid Hamidi met the state government’s 25 BN, PAS and Wawasan assemblymen, including Ismail, for about three hours at UMNO headquarters in Kuala Lumpur. Before the meeting Zahid said he had given Ismail full authority to seek a solution, including an audience with Tuanku Muhriz and the Undangs, and rejected suggestions of an emergency declaration. No statement was issued afterwards, and the assemblymen declined to speak to reporters (The Edge, 27 September 2026, Malay Mail, 27 September 2026, UtusanMelayuPlus, 27 September 2026, FMT, 28 September 2026).

Commentary worth reading

COMMENT | Assault on constitutional sovereignty of N Sembilan monarchy, rule of law, 21 September 2026: A signed comment piece by former presidents of the Malaysian Bar argues that the EXCO had no constitutional mandate to unseat a Ruler, calling the reported conduct of the exco “an egregious violation of the state constitution, and a direct and unlawful assault on the institution of the constitutional monarchy”. It sets the EXCO’s 16 September announcement against the positions already taken by the DKU, the AGC and the State Secretary’s office (Malaysiakini, 21 September 2026).

Anarchy in Negeri Sembilan, 23 September 2026: Kalimullah Hassan, former group editor-in-chief of NSTP, asks what did Tuanku Muhriz Tuanku Munawir actually do that led to UMNO bringing anarchy to Negeri Sembilan in trying to remove him as the ruler of the state? He notes that no scandal has attached to the Yang di-Pertuan Besar in 18 years. He connects the timing to Tuanku Muhriz’s public criticism of support for Najib Razak after his conviction (The Vibes, 23 September 2026).

Stop manipulating facts, academic tells ‘4 undangs’, 25 September 2026: FMT put the signatories’ claim of an exclusive power to appoint and remove the Ruler to Faisal Tehrani (an academic) and (Rosli Dahlan) a senior lawyer, both of whom rejected it. Both challenged the standing of Mubarak and Maarof, pointing out that each had already been removed earlier in the year (FMT, 25 September 2026).

Negeri Sembilan: Umno’s constitutional miscalculation, September 2026: An opinion piece by P Ramasamy argues that the attempt against Tuanku Muhriz reflects UMNO overreach after its state election win (FMT, 25 September 2026).

How UMNO and PAS undermined their own political advantage in Negeri Sembilan, 26 September 2026: Lim Sue Goan, chief leader writer of Sin Chew Daily, argues that BN and PN have undone the advantage their state election win gave them. He counts four reversals by Ismail in ten days and sets his signature on the proclamation against the former Menteri Besar Aminuddin Harun’s refusal to sign. He also notes that the state assembly must sit within six months of its last sitting to avoid automatic dissolution, which he puts in January 2027 (Sin Chew Daily, 26 September 2026).

What we are watching for

7 October 2026: The parties in judicial review WA-25-201-07/2026 return before Judge Norliza Othman at the Kuala Lumpur High Court, where the DKU’s application to intervene is still pending.

19 October 2026: Case management at the Court of Appeal in the appeal by Mubarak and five others against the Seremban High Court’s grant of leave for committal proceedings.

27 October 2026: Mention of Rais Yatim’s case at the Ayer Keroh Sessions Court

What statements the police record from ten members whose EXCO appointments were revoked
Whether Ismail seeks an audience with Tuanku Muhriz and the Undangs, as Zahid directed
Whether Ismail submits a new EXCO list as the palace directed on 20 September
Whether the contempt proceedings threatened by Halim & Ismail on 16 September, on behalf of the DKU and its secretary Raja Norazli Raja Nordin, are filed

New posts written by this publication last week

Did the 22 September Joint Statement by the “Undang Yang Empat” ¹ and Tunku Besar Tampin Go Too Far?: An analysis of the statement’s legal claims and the questions it raises under the Sedition Act 1948, Section 121B of the Penal Code and the law of defamation. The full English translation is in Joint Media Statement, 22 September 2026.
What Is the Sedition Act 1948, and Why Does It Matter in Negeri Sembilan?: Rais Yatim was charged on 25 September under Section 4(1)(b) of the Sedition Act 1948 and pleaded not guilty. This article covers what the Act says, how it applies to the Negeri Sembilan royal crisis, and who can be liable under it.
Updated: What Are the 33 Offences Mubarak Was Accused Of?: The article now also sets out the background to Mubarak Dohak’s removal as Undang of Luak Sungei Ujong and where that removal stands today.

Sources:

About Weekly Round-Ups

Weekly Round-Ups are published every Monday morning. Each round-up covers what happened the previous week, what we are watching for in the week ahead, and links to posts published that week.

How to manage your subscription

When you subscribe to this Substack, you are subscribed to both formats by default: regular posts and Weekly Round-Ups.

To receive only the Weekly Round-Ups:

From any email: scroll to the bottom and click Unsubscribe or Manage subscription. You will see the option to opt out of regular posts while keeping the Weekly Round-Up.
From the website: go to Account Settings on Substack, find Anak Nogori under your subscriptions, and toggle off Posts while leaving Weekly Round-Ups on.

To unsubscribe entirely, click Unsubscribe at the bottom of any email, or use Substack’s account settings.

If you are new to this Substack and are not sure where to begin, visit our Start Here page, where we list all our articles organised by theme.

Start Here

What Is the Sedition Act 1948 and How Does It Apply to the Negeri Sembilan Crisis?

Anak Nogori — Sat, 26 Sep 2026 06:44:39 GMT

Former Dewan Negara president Rais Yatim pleaded not guilty on 25 September 2026 to a charge under section 4(1)(b) of the Sedition Act 1948 over words allegedly spoken during the 5 June ceremony at a Melaka hotel where Tunku Nadzaruddin Tuanku Ja’afar was proclaimed the 12th Yang di-Pertuan Besar by those who organised it.

According to the charge, Rais referred to Tunku Nadzaruddin as the 12th Yang di-Pertuan Besar, said he was free to perform royal functions and called on those present to pledge their loyalty to him (Bernama, 25 September 2026, Malay Mail, 25 September 2026).

The Akta Hasutan 1948 (Sedition Act 1948)

The Act is short, with eleven sections (see full reprint here).

Section 3(1): the six seditious tendencies

(1) A “seditious tendency” is a tendency:
(a) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against any Ruler or against any Government;
(b) to excite the subjects of any Ruler or the inhabitants of any territory governed by any Government to attempt to procure in the territory of the Ruler or governed by the Government, the alteration, otherwise than by lawful means, of any matter as by law established;
(c) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the administration of justice in Malaysia or in any State;
(d) to raise discontent or disaffection amongst the subjects of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or of the Ruler of any State or amongst the inhabitants of Malaysia or of any State;
(e) to promote feelings of ill will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Malaysia;
(f) to question any matter, right, status, position, privilege, sovereignty or prerogative established or protected by the provisions of Part III of the Federal Constitution or Article 152, 153 or 181 of the Federal Constitution.

Section 3(1) contains six categories of seditious tendency.

In the Negeri Sembilan crisis, words recognising another person as Yang di-Pertuan Besar or calling upon the public to transfer their loyalty could potentially raise questions under paragraph (a), concerning disaffection against a Ruler; paragraph (b), concerning an alteration otherwise than by lawful means of something established by law; paragraph (d), concerning disaffection among a Ruler’s subjects; and paragraph (f), concerning constitutional matters protected by Article 181.

Sections 3(2) and 3(3): the exceptions, and why intention is set aside

Section 3(2) protects saying that a Ruler has been misled or mistaken, and pointing out defects in government, law or the justice system with a view to fixing them, although that protection is narrower for the matters listed in paragraph (f). Section 3(3) makes the speaker’s intention irrelevant if the words had a seditious tendency, a feature critics of the Act have long regarded as one of its broadest (Amnesty International USA, 25 January 2016).

Section 4(1): the offences and the penalties

(1) Any person who:

(a) does or attempts to do, or makes any preparation to do, or conspires with any person to do, any act which has or which would, if done, have a seditious tendency;

(b) utters any seditious words;

(c) prints, publishes, sells, offers for sale, distributes or reproduces any seditious publication; or

(d) imports any seditious publication, shall be guilty of an offence and shall, on conviction, be liable for a first offence to a fine not exceeding five thousand ringgit or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or to both, and, for a subsequent offence, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; and any seditious publication found in the possession of the person or used in evidence at his trial shall be forfeited and may be destroyed or otherwise disposed of as the court directs.

Section 4 turns those definitions into criminal offences. It covers acts with a seditious tendency, the uttering of seditious words, and the printing, publishing, distributing or reproducing of a seditious publication.

For a first offence, the Act provides for a fine of up to RM5,000, imprisonment for up to three years, or both.

Rais has been charged specifically under section 4(1)(b), concerning the alleged uttering of seditious words (Bernama, 25 September 2026).

Section 5: the Public Prosecutor’s consent

Section 5 allows a prosecution under section 4 only with the written consent of the Public Prosecutor, who may also choose any court in Malaysia to hear the case. The Rais case is being heard in Melaka because the alleged offence took place in Alor Gajah.

Section 6: corroboration and a defence for publishers

Section 6(1) bars a conviction on the uncorroborated evidence of a single witness. Section 6(2) gives a person charged with publishing a defence if the material went out without their knowledge or they had no reason to believe it was seditious.

How the Act has appeared in the crisis so far

The public record shows the Act invoked mainly at the investigation and charging stage:

8 May 2026: Negeri Sembilan police said 49 statements had been recorded over social media content linked to the crisis, with investigations under section 4(1) of the Sedition Act, sections 500 and 505(b) of the Penal Code, and section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998. The police chief said the kertas siasatan (investigation papers) would be referred to the prosecution (FMT, 8 May 2026).
25 June 2026: Badrul Hisham Shaharin, known as Chegubard, pleaded not guilty at the Seremban Sessions Court to a charge under section 4(1) of the Sedition Act over a Facebook post made on 26 May concerning the Negeri Sembilan royal institution. The court set bail at RM5,000 and rejected the prosecution’s request for a gag order (Malaysiakini, 25 June 2026, Malay Mail, 25 June 2026). On 12 August the court fixed his trial for 15 to 17 February 2027 (Utusan Malaysia, 12 August 2026).
20 July 2026: A 52-year-old man was detained in Seremban over a Threads post that police said insulted the Negeri Sembilan royal institution. The investigation was under section 4 of the Sedition Act, section 505 of the Penal Code and section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act (The Sun, 20 July 2026).
25 September 2026: Rais Yatim pleaded not guilty to a charge under section 4(1)(b). Bail was set at RM8,000 with one surety, and the case was fixed for mention on 27 October (Bernama, 25 September 2026).
The Dewan Keadilan dan Undang (DKU) has directed that a police report be lodged against the six signatories of the 5 September document, while the Home Minister has said police are investigating the wider dispute from “every angle” (Malay Mail, 14 September 2026, Malay Mail, 24 September 2026).

Where the Sedition Act ends and the Penal Code begins

The Sedition Act is one of several federal laws that touch the position of a Ruler. Section 121B of the Penal Code deals with compassing or intending the deposition of a Ruler from the rule of a State, and it carries far heavier penalties.

The two laws ask different questions:

The Sedition Act looks at the tendency of words and acts: whether they bring a Ruler into contempt, or question a protected status.
Section 121B looks at a design directed at removing a Ruler.

When asked on 24 September which of the two applied to the investigation into the Executive Council, the Home Minister left the matter to police and, after them, the Attorney General’s Chambers (Malaysia Tribune, 24 September 2026).

What are the wider ramifications?

The charge against Rais shows that the Public Prosecutor has chosen to prosecute words describing Tunku Nadzaruddin as the 12th Yang di-Pertuan Besar and calling on those present to pledge loyalty to him.

If those words are ultimately found to have a seditious tendency, their subsequent circulation could raise separate questions under section 4(1)(c). Section 4(1)(c) covers anyone who “prints, publishes, sells, offers for sale, distributes or reproduces” a seditious publication, with the same maximum penalty prescribed under section 4(1).

In a dispute argued extensively on social media, the distinction between creating and circulating content may matter less than one might think. Reposting, forwarding or sharing material can itself fall within section 4(1)(c) where the publication is found to be seditious, and carries the same maximum penalty under section 4(1) as speaking or writing the original words.

If you are new to this Substack and are not sure where to begin, visit our Start Here page, where we list all our articles organised by theme.

Start Here

Sources:

If you are new to this Substack and are not sure where to begin, visit our Start Here page, where we list all our articles organised by theme.

Start Here

Did the 22 September Joint Statement by the “Undang Yang Empat” and Tunku Besar Tampin Go Too Far?

Anak Nogori — Tue, 22 Sep 2026 23:30:23 GMT

Full English translation here.

On 22 September 2026, five signatories issued a four-page joint media statement on the position of the Yang di-Pertuan Besar of Negeri Sembilan. They were the removed Undangs Mubarak Dohak of Luak Sungei Ujong and Maarof Mat Rashad of Luak Jelebu; Abdul Rahim Yasin, whose appointment as Undang of Luak Rembau the Dewan Keadilan dan Undang (DKU) maintains was never completed; Muhammed Abdullah, Undang of Luak Johol; and Tunku Syed Razman Syed Idrus Al-Qadri, the Tunku Besar Tampin.

What the statement says

The signatories claimed the power to elect and depose the Yang di-Pertuan Besar as their customary prerogative under Articles 7, 10 and 11.

“Kami menegaskan kuasa memilih dan menurunkan Yang di-Pertuan Besar merupakan adat prerogatif Kami yang turut termaktub di dalam Perkara 7, Perkara 10 dan Perkara 11 Undang-Undang Tubuh Kerajaan Negeri Sembilan (UUTKNS) 1959.”
“We affirm that the power to elect and to depose the Yang di-Pertuan Besar is Our customary prerogative, which is also enshrined in Articles 7, 10 and 11 of the Laws of the Constitution of Negeri Sembilan (UUTKNS) 1959.”

They described as malicious slander the view that the Menteri Besar and the State Executive Council (EXCO) deposed Tuanku Muhriz, and said the state government merely complied with their decision.

“Tohmahan pihak tertentu bahawa penurunan takhta Tuanku Muhriz ibni Almarhum Tuanku Munawir telah dibuat oleh YAB Menteri Besar Dato’ Ismail bin Lasim serta barisan ahli Majlis Mesyuarat Kerajaan Negeri (EXCO) adalah satu fitnah jahat yang dirancang demi kepentingan peribadi kumpulan tertentu. YAB Menteri Besar dan EXCO sama sekali tidak mempunyai kuasa itu sebaliknya hanya melaksanakan tugas perlembagaan bagi mematuhi ketetapan Kami selaku YTM Undang Yang Empat di bawah Perkara 10 UUTKNS 1959.”
“The allegation by certain parties that the deposition of Tuanku Muhriz ibni Almarhum Tuanku Munawir was carried out by YAB Menteri Besar Dato’ Ismail bin Lasim together with the members of the State Executive Council (EXCO) is a malicious slander engineered for the personal interests of a certain group. YAB Menteri Besar and EXCO have no such power whatsoever, and are merely carrying out their constitutional duty to comply with Our decision as YTM Undang Yang Empat ¹ under Article 10 UUTKNS 1959.”

They asserted that Tuanku Muhriz was deposed on 19 April, that the proclamation was completed by the signature of Menteri Besar Ismail Lasim on 3 August, and that it needed no publication in the Gazette.

“Dalam pada itu bahawa dipertegaskan Tunku Muhriz ibni Almarhum Tuanku Munawir telah pun diturunkan takhta menurut Perkara 10 (1) dan (2) UUTKNS 1959 pada 19 April 2026 dan proklamasi mengenainya telah pun disempurnakan dengan tandatangan YAB Menteri Besar Negeri Sembilan pada 3 Ogos 2026. Proklamasi penurunan takhta tersebut adalah sempurna menurut adat dan UUTKNS 1959 tanpa memerlukan pewartaan.”
“It is further affirmed that Tunku Muhriz ibni Almarhum Tuanku Munawir was deposed under Articles 10(1) and (2) UUTKNS 1959 on 19 April 2026, and that the proclamation concerning it was completed with the signature of YAB Menteri Besar of Negeri Sembilan on 3 August 2026. The proclamation of deposition is complete according to Adat and UUTKNS 1959 without requiring gazettement.”

They called Tuanku Muhriz the “former” Yang di-Pertuan Besar, and accused him of acting in bad faith (literally, “not pure of heart”), of sabotage, of obstruction and of inciting disloyalty in the state administration.

“Kami menegaskan bahawa tindakan Tunku Muhriz ibni Almarhum Tuanku Munawir mengarahkan pengumuman untuk memberhentikan barisan EXCO Kerajaan Negeri Sembilan ialah salah, tidak berpelembagaan [sic] dan tiada kuatkuasa. Kejadian ini tidak pernah berlaku dalam sejarah moden Negeri Sembilan dan amat memalukan Kerajaan Negeri. Ia adalah tindakan tidak suci hati mantan Yang di-Pertuan Besar bagi mensabotaj keputusan kolektif EXCO Kerajaan Negeri dan sekaligus cubaan untuk menghalang Raja Pemerintah Negeri Sembilan untuk menjalankan pemerintahan di samping menghasut pentadbiran Negeri untuk tidak setia kepada Kerajaan Raja Pemerintah yang sah.”
“We affirm that the action of Tunku Muhriz ibni Almarhum Tuanku Munawir in directing the announcement dismissing the EXCO of the Negeri Sembilan State Government is wrong, unconstitutional and of no effect. This has never happened in the modern history of Negeri Sembilan and is deeply embarrassing to the State Government. It is an act, not pure of heart, by the former Yang di-Pertuan Besar to sabotage the collective decision of the State EXCO, and at the same time an attempt to obstruct the Ruler (Raja Pemerintah) of Negeri Sembilan from governing, while inciting the State administration to be disloyal to the lawful Government of the Ruler.”

“Insaflah bahawa kuasa pemerintahan hanya sah dilaksanakan atas nama Raja Pemerintah selaras dengan Perkara 35 UUTKNS 1959, bukan mantan Yang di-Pertuan Besar.”
“Be aware that executive authority is lawfully exercised only in the name of the Ruler (Raja Pemerintah) in accordance with Article 35 UUTKNS 1959, and not in the name of the former Yang di-Pertuan Besar.”

They exhorted the Prime Minister not to act for gain and political influence, and warned him and the Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC) to keep out of Negeri Sembilan’s affairs.

“Kami ingin mengingatkan YAB Perdana Menteri dan Jabatan Peguam Negara supaya tidak mencampuri urusan pemerintahan Negeri Sembilan khususnya prerogatif Kami di bawah Perkara 10 dan Perkara 11 UUTKNS 1959 kerana YAB Perdana Menteri dan Jabatan Peguam Negara tidak mempunyai bidang kuasa untuk berbuat sedemikian. Janganlah semata-mata kerana laba dan pengaruh politik atau tunduk kepada tekanan pihak tertentu, YAB Perdana Menteri sanggup melakukan apa sahaja tanpa menggunakan akal dan hati nurani malah tidak segan silu melanggarkan prinsip keluhuran Perlembagaan. Janganlah bertindak lebih sudu daripada kuah dan hidung tak mancung pipi tersorong-sorong.”
“We wish to remind YAB Prime Minister and the Attorney General’s Chambers not to interfere in the governance of Negeri Sembilan, in particular Our prerogative under Articles 10 and 11 UUTKNS 1959, because YAB Prime Minister and the Attorney General’s Chambers have no jurisdiction to do so. Let not YAB Prime Minister, merely for gain and political influence or in submission to pressure from certain parties, be willing to do anything at all without using reason and conscience, and even be unashamed to breach the principle of the supremacy of the Constitution. Do not act as the spoon that outdoes the gravy, or as the cheeks that push forward when the nose is not prominent.”

They closed by calling on civil servants to give their full loyalty to Tunku Nadzaruddin, and on the public to remain calm during “the transfer of power that is currently under way”.

“Kami juga menyeru semua penjawat awam Negeri agar tidak melayani sebarang tekanan daripada mana-mana pihak dan hendaklah akur kepada ketetapan Majlis Mesyuarat Kerajaan Negeri serta menumpahkan sepenuh taat setia kepada Raja Pemerintah Negeri Sembilan, iaitu DYMM Tuanku Nadzaruddin ibni Almarhum Tuanku Ja’afar, Yang di-Pertuan Besar Negeri Sembilan Ke-12 dan Pembesar Memerintah yang sah selaras dengan Perkara 11 dan 28 UUTKNS 1959.”
“We also call on all State civil servants not to entertain pressure from any party, to abide by the decision of the State Executive Council and to give their full loyalty to the Ruler (Raja Pemerintah) of Negeri Sembilan, namely DYMM Tuanku Nadzaruddin ibni Almarhum Tuanku Ja’afar, the 12th Yang di-Pertuan Besar of Negeri Sembilan, and the lawful Ruling Chiefs (Pembesar Memerintah), in accordance with Articles 11 and 28 UUTKNS 1959.”

“Kami menyeru agar rakyat Negeri Sembilan kekal tenang dan tidak terpengaruh oleh sebarang provokasi dan sebaran maklumat tidak sahih dalam proses peralihan kuasa yang sedang berjalan kini.”
“We call on the people of Negeri Sembilan to remain calm and not to be influenced by any provocation or the spread of unverified information during the transfer of power that is currently under way.”

Read a full English translation here.

Where things stand

Two institutions have already set out the legal position the statement has to contend with.

On 14 September, the DKU issued a statement which said that no enquiry under Article 10(1) of the Negeri Sembilan Constitution 1959 had ever been held, that Tuanku Muhriz was given no notice or opportunity to be heard, and that four of the six people who signed the signatories’ 5 September document did not hold the offices they claimed.

The AGC’s statement on 17 September said that the 19 April proclamation was invalid for failing to meet the mandatory requirements of Article 10, and that some of the Undangs who signed the proclamation no longer lawfully held office, having been removed by their respective Luaks. The AGC also affirmed that the DKU’s advice on questions of Malay custom was final and cannot be challenged or questioned in any court on any ground.

Read against those findings, the statement does the signatories more harm than good.

Eight constitutional and legal problems raised by the statement

1. It puts their responsibility on the record

The five signatories insist that the decision to remove Tuanku Muhriz was theirs, exercising what they describe as their customary and constitutional prerogative under Articles 7, 10 and 11, and that the Menteri Besar and the State Executive Council (EXCO) merely complied.

On the DKU and AGC’s finding that no “full and complete enquiry” took place, the five have signed a document claiming sole ownership of a defective act.

2. They still do not explain what their claimed Article 10 enquiry examined or found

Article 10(1) permits the Undangs to call on the Yang di-Pertuan Besar to abdicate only “after full and complete enquiry”, and only on the grounds the Article lists: serious incapacity, a quality disqualifying him under Hukum Syarak (Islamic law), an overt act detrimental to the dignity of the office, or deliberate disregard of the Constitution.

The 22 September statement does not identify which of those grounds was relied upon. Nor does it describe what it examined, whether Tuanku Muhriz was notified, or whether he was given an opportunity to respond.

Those omissions are particularly significant because they concern precisely the defects identified by the DKU on 14 September and subsequently by the AGC.

3. Article 28 works against them

The statement claims that their position as Ruler of the state is enshrined in Article 28. The Article defines “Ruler” for the purposes of the Second Part of the Constitution as:

“His Highness and the Ruling Chiefs who are available and holding office at the material time”.

That wording makes the status of the signatories important: the DKU and AGC both stated that three of the four people who signed the earlier document as Undangs did not hold those offices.

There is also a structural point. Article 28 appears in the Second Part of the Constitution, dealing with the machinery of government. The provisions governing the election and removal of the Yang di-Pertuan Besar sit in the First Part.

4. Their own Article 71 argument points back to the DKU

The statement invokes Article 71(1) of the Federal Constitution in support of its warning to the Prime Minister and the AGC not to interfere in the governance of Negeri Sembilan.

Article 71(1) provides that any dispute over the title to succession as Ruler is to be determined:

“solely by such authorities and in such manner as may be provided by the Constitution of that State.”

For the removal of a Yang di-Pertuan Besar in Negeri Sembilan, the relevant machinery is Article 10, which only the Undangs can set in motion. That makes the identity of the Undangs critical.

Who holds office as Undang is a question on which Article 16 empowers the DKU to advise, and Article 16(3) provides that its advice on questions of Malay custom, including the removal of a Ruling Chief, is final and cannot be challenged in any court.

Article 71, the provision the statement invokes against federal involvement, is the provision that directs the dispute right back to the DKU.

5. Three signatories claim constitutional powers attached to offices the DKU says they do not hold

On the DKU’s advice, three of the four people who purported to act as Undangs were not holding those offices.

A federal government that respects the DKU’s determinations on who lawfully holds office as Undang is therefore deferring to Negeri Sembilan’s own constitutional machinery.

6. It raises questions of sedition and treason

The closing paragraphs go further than defending the 19 April proclamation. They call upon state civil servants to follow the EXCO and give their full loyalty to Tunku Nadzaruddin, while describing a transfer of power as already under way.

That instruction comes after the DKU directed state officers to continue recognising Tuanku Muhriz and said that no government officer was required to act upon instructions founded on the signatories’ 5 September document (DKU Statement, 14 September 2026).

It also comes while litigation over the conduct of several of the signatories remains pending. The High Court injunction of 5 June and the subsequent committal proceedings form part of that background (FMT, 8 July 2026, FMT, 7 September 2026, Malay Mail, 7 September 2026).

The DKU’s solicitors have separately argued that the EXCO’s announcement accepting the proclamation breached the same orders, and have said their clients intend to begin contempt proceedings against its members (DKU Statement, 14 September 2026, Halim & Ismail Letter, 16 September 2026 ).

The wording may therefore attract scrutiny under laws extending beyond the Negeri Sembilan Constitution. Section 3(1)(a) of the Sedition Act 1948 concerns a tendency to excite disaffection against a Ruler. Section 121B of the Penal Code concerns an intention to depose a Ruler from the sovereignty of a State.

Whether either provision has been breached would require investigation and, ultimately, determination through the criminal justice system. The immediate point is narrower: by asking public officers to transfer their loyalty away from the Yang di-Pertuan Besar whom both the DKU and the AGC confirm in office, the statement moves beyond constitutional argument into conduct capable of legal scrutiny.

7. They warn the Prime Minister against acting for gain and political influence, and tell the AGC to stay out

The statement warns the Prime Minister against acting, in its words, merely for gain and political influence or under pressure from certain parties, without reason or conscience, and warns both the Prime Minister and the AGC against interfering in Negeri Sembilan’s affairs.

The exhortation framed as a warning is directed at a position the federal government has not taken. The Prime Minister said on 18 September that Putrajaya would not interfere beyond insisting that the proper procedures be followed in full (Bernama, 18 September 2026). Two days later, with the EXCO maintaining its position, he said the full weight of the government’s machinery would be deployed to defend constitutional monarchy (FMT, 20 September 2026). The two statements rest on the same premise. The federal government claims no power to decide who holds the throne, and commits itself to upholding the State Constitution’s procedures and the legitimate Ruler under them. Article 71 guarantees exactly that.

8. Their case depends on an MB signature whose validity and circumstances are disputed

The signatories say the 19 April proclamation became complete when Menteri Besar Ismail Lasim added his signature. Article 10(2) does require the proclamation to be issued under the hands of the Undangs and the Menteri Besar. The dispute is over what happened before and after that requirement could be satisfied.

The DKU’s position is that the proclamation had already lapsed after the then Menteri Besar declined to sign it on 20 April, and that a signature added months later could not revive it (RTM, 14 September 2026). Ismail, meanwhile, has said that his 3 August signature was given under duress (Straits Times, 8 September 2026).

Summary

For all its forceful language, the statement does not resolve the issues that have defined the dispute since April.

There is still no account in the document of the “full and complete enquiry” required by Article 10(1). Three of the signatories continue to claim the powers of offices the DKU says they do not hold. The effect of the Menteri Besar’s later signature remains contested. And Article 71 ultimately directs attention back to the constitutional authorities and procedures of Negeri Sembilan.

What the statement adds is a record. By expressly claiming responsibility for the purported removal, repeating instructions to state officers and calling for their loyalty to be transferred to Tunku Nadzaruddin, it potentially exposes the signatories to further contempt proceedings and to criminal investigation. The questions include whether their conduct breaches the High Court’s 5 June injunction, whether the words have a seditious tendency under the Sedition Act 1948, and whether the call to transfer loyalty engages Section 121B of the Penal Code concerning the deposition of a Ruler.

The committal proceedings over the 5 June injunction are already before the courts. Whether any criminal offence has been committed is for the police, the Attorney General’s Chambers and the courts to decide, and the provisions in question are not minor ones. Contempt of court is punishable by imprisonment or a fine at the court’s discretion. A conviction under Section 3(1)(a) of the Sedition Act 1948 carries a fine, imprisonment or both. A conviction under Section 121B of the Penal Code carries imprisonment of 30 to 40 years.

Footnote:

This publication has reproduced the joint media statement of 22 September 2026 in full, with an English translation, so that readers can see exactly what the signatories claimed. Several of its claims are disputed by the Dewan Keadilan dan Undang (DKU), the Istana Besar Seri Menanti, the Attorney General’s Chambers and the State Secretary, whose positions are set out below. The allegations and characterisations in the statement are the signatories’ alone. This publication regards Tuanku Muhriz as the Yang di-Pertuan Besar of Negeri Sembilan.

If you are new to this Substack and are not sure where to begin, visit our Start Here page, where we list all our articles organised by theme.

Start Here

Sources:

Joint “Undang Yang Empat” and Tunku Besar Tampin Media Statement, 22 September 2026

Anak Nogori — Tue, 22 Sep 2026 16:16:41 GMT

This publication reproduces the joint media statement of 22 September 2026 in full, with an English translation, so that readers can see exactly what the signatories claimed. Several of its claims are disputed by the Dewan Keadilan dan Undang (DKU), the Istana Besar Seri Menanti, the Attorney General’s Chambers and the State Secretary, whose positions are set out below. The allegations and characterisations in the statement are the signatories’ alone. This publication regards Tuanku Muhriz as the Yang di-Pertuan Besar of Negeri Sembilan.

Translation:

Letterhead (Jawi): Yang Teramat Mulia (His Most Exalted Highness) Dato’ Undang Yang Empat, Negeri Sembilan Darul Khusus

JOINT MEDIA STATEMENT OF YANG TERAMAT MULIA UNDANG YANG EMPAT AND YANG TERAMAT MULIA TUNKU BESAR TAMPIN

In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. All praise be to Allah, Lord of the worlds, and blessings and peace be upon the master of the Messengers, and upon his family and his companions, all of them.

AL-WATHIQU BILLAH, Yang Teramat Mulia Dato’ Klana Petra Dato’ Mubarak Bin Thahak Undang Luak Sungei Ujong, Yang Teramat Mulia Dato’ Mendika Menteri Akhirulzaman Dato’ Maarof Bin Haji Mat Rashad Undang Luak Jelebu, Yang Teramat Mulia Dato’ Johan Pahlawan Lela Perkasa Sitiawan Dato’ Muhammed Bin Haji Abdullah Undang Luak Johol, Yang Teramat Mulia Dato’ Sedia Raja Dato’ Haji Abdul Rahim Bin Haji Yasin Undang Luak Rembau and Yang Teramat Mulia Tunku Syed Razman Bin Syed Idrus Al-Qadri Tunku Besar Tampin:

WHEREAS We affirm that the power to choose and to bring down the Yang di-Pertuan Besar is our customary prerogative, which is also enshrined in Article 7, Article 10 and Article 11 of the Laws of the Constitution of the State Government of Negeri Sembilan (UUTKNS) 1959. The accusation by certain parties that the bringing down from the throne of Tuanku Muhriz ibni Almarhum Tuanku Munawir was carried out by YAB Menteri Besar Dato’ Ismail bin Lasim together with the line-up of members of the State Executive Council (EXCO) is a wicked slander planned for the personal interests of a certain group. The YAB Menteri Besar and EXCO do not have that power at all; on the contrary, they only carry out the constitutional duty of complying with our decision as YTM Undang Yang Empat under Article 10 UUTKNS 1959, besides preserving our position as the Governing Ruler (Raja Pemerintah) of this State as enshrined in Article 28 UUTKNS 1959:

Meaning of the Word Raja
28.(1) Subject to Clause (2) under this Article, the word Raja wherever it is written in the Second Part of this Constitution means the Yang Maha Mulia and the Undang Yang Empat and the Tunku Besar Tampin who are there at that time.

WHEREAS let it be remembered that we condemn in the strongest terms every effort by certain parties, openly or in hiding, to try to violate our prerogative and constitutional rights in this our State. We wish to remind the YAB Prime Minister and the Attorney General’s Chambers not to interfere in the matters of the governance of Negeri Sembilan, especially our prerogative under Article 10 and Article 11 UUTKNS 1959, because the YAB Prime Minister and the Attorney General’s Chambers do not have the jurisdiction to do so. Do not, merely because of profit and political influence or bowing to the pressure of certain parties, have the YAB Prime Minister be willing to do anything at all without using reason and conscience, and not even be ashamed to violate the principle of the supremacy of the Constitution. Do not act more spoon than gravy, and the nose not sharp, the cheeks pushing forward (lebih sudu daripada kuah dan hidung tak mancung pipi tersorong-sorong). Such unconstitutional actions, if continued, are a violation of the oath of the Prime Minister under the Sixth Schedule besides a breach of trust towards Article 71 of the Federal Constitution. The said provision reads:

Federal Guarantee towards State Constitutions
71.(1) The Federation shall guarantee the right of the Raja of a State to ascend the throne and to hold, enjoy and exercise the rights and privileges under the constitution for the Raja of that State according to the Constitution of that State; but any dispute about the right to ascend the throne as Raja of any State shall be decided solely by any authority, and solely according to any manner, provided by the Constitution of that State.

WHEREAS We also affirm that all outside parties who have no connection with matters of Malay custom and the governance of this State Government, especially opposition political parties, are not to fish in murky water (menangguk di air keruh) and twist the mandate of the people to the point of issuing ugly comments towards the State Government and the Adat Institution as well as the Government of Negeri Sembilan. The Adat that has been practised has continued for more than 500 years, and surely we as Rulers and Heads of Adat understand better what is happening. Only the jeweller recognises the gem (hanya jauhari mengenal manikam).

WHEREAS We affirm that the action of Tunku Muhriz ibni Almarhum Tuanku Munawir in directing the announcement to dismiss the line-up of the Negeri Sembilan State Government EXCO is wrong, unconstitutional and has no force. This occurrence has never happened in the modern history of Negeri Sembilan and is very embarrassing to the State Government. It is an action not pure of heart by the former Yang di-Pertuan Besar to sabotage the collective decision of the State Government EXCO, and at the same time an attempt to obstruct the Governing Ruler (Raja Pemerintah) of Negeri Sembilan from carrying out governance, besides inciting the State administration to be disloyal to the lawful Government of the Governing Ruler.

Any decision regarding the position of EXCO according to UUTKNS 1959 must be referred to and carried out on the advice of the YAB Menteri Besar and/or the State Executive Council. In that regard, it is reaffirmed that Tunku Muhriz ibni Almarhum Tuanku Munawir has already been brought down from the throne according to Article 10(1) and (2) UUTKNS 1959 on 19 April 2026, and the proclamation concerning it has already been perfected with the signature of the YAB Menteri Besar of Negeri Sembilan on 3 August 2026. The proclamation of bringing down from the throne is perfect according to adat and UUTKNS 1959 without requiring gazettement.

WHEREAS We also advise Tunku Muhriz ibni Almarhum Tuanku Munawir to engage in self-reflection (bermuhasabah), be humble and accept the reality that he has been brought down from the throne, and therefore to withdraw honourably. We also call on all civil servants of the State not to entertain any pressure from any party, and to comply with the decisions of the State Executive Council, and to swear full loyalty to the Governing Ruler of Negeri Sembilan, namely DYMM Tuanku Nadzaruddin ibni Almarhum Tuanku Ja’afar, the 12th Yang di-Pertuan Besar of Negeri Sembilan, and the lawful Governing Chiefs (Pembesar Memerintah), in line with Articles 11 and 28 UUTKNS 1959. Realise that executive power is only lawfully exercised in the name of the Governing Ruler in line with Article 35 UUTKNS 1959, not the former Yang di-Pertuan Besar.

Executive Power
35.(1) The executive power of this State is subject to the Raja and may be exercised, except as otherwise provided by the Federal Constitution or these Laws of the Constitution, by the Yang Maha Mulia or the State Executive Council or any member of the State Executive Council given power by the State Executive Council, but executive functions may be given to other persons or authorities by law.
(2) All executive power of this State shall be exercised expressly in the name of the Raja.

WHEREAS We call on the people of Negeri Sembilan to remain calm and not be influenced by any provocation and spread of untrue information in the process of the transfer of power that is currently under way. Adat is jointed to law, law is jointed to syarak, syarak is jointed to the Book of Allah (adat bersendi hukum, hukum bersendi syarak, syarak bersendi kitabullah). Let the child die, do not let adat die (biar mati anak, jangan mati adat).

Thus it is decreed (sekian disabdakan).

Recorded on the 22nd day of September, 2026, corresponding to 11 Rabiulakhir 1448H.

If you are new to this Substack and are not sure where to begin, visit our Start Here page, where we list all our articles organised by theme.

Start Here

Palace Media Statement Revoking EXCO Appointments, 20 September 2026

Anak Nogori — Mon, 21 Sep 2026 02:20:33 GMT

Translation

Press Statement
Revocation of the appointment of Members of the State Executive Council, Negeri Sembilan

The Duli Yang Maha Mulia Yang di-Pertuan Besar of Negeri Sembilan Darul Khusus has revoked the appointment of the Members of the State Executive Council, Negeri Sembilan, with immediate effect, for breaching their oath of office.
Under Article 38(5) of the Constitution of Negeri Sembilan 1959, a Member of the State Executive Council, Negeri Sembilan holds office during the pleasure of the Duli Yang Maha Mulia.
The Members concerned each took the oath and signed the pledge of loyalty to the Duli Yang Maha Mulia on 7 August 2026 before being appointed to the Council.
They pledged loyalty to the Duli Yang Maha Mulia and to the Royal Institution, swore to protect and preserve the sovereignty of the Constitution of Negeri Sembilan, and to recognise the authority vested in the Dewan Keadilan dan Undang (DKU) of Negeri Sembilan.
They breached this oath through their actions and statements on 15 September.
Accordingly, the Duli Yang Maha Mulia has withdrawn His Royal Highness’s pleasure and revoked their appointments as Members of the State Executive Council, Negeri Sembilan, with immediate effect. Each individual concerned has been informed of the revocation by royal letter.
In connection with this, the Menteri Besar is to submit a new list of candidates for Members of the State Executive Council, Negeri Sembilan for the consideration and pleasure of the Duli Yang Maha Mulia under Article 38(2) of the Constitution of Negeri Sembilan 1959.
The Duli Yang Maha Mulia expects the Menteri Besar to ensure that the administration of Negeri Sembilan Darul Khusus continues without any disruption or obstruction in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution of Negeri Sembilan 1959, and that the interests of the rakyat remain safeguarded.

Dato’ Azizi bin Mohamad Ali
Pengelola Bijaya Diraja (Comptroller of the Royal Household)
20 September 2026

If you are new to this Substack and are not sure where to begin, visit our Start Here page, where we list all our articles organised by theme.

Start Here

Anak Nogori Weekly Round-Up (14-20 September, 2026)

Anak Nogori — Mon, 21 Sep 2026 02:01:15 GMT

What happened last week

14 Sep 2026, Monday: The Dewan Keadilan dan Undang (DKU) issued a statement following a special sitting on 13 September. It said Tuanku Muhriz remains the Yang di-Pertuan Besar and that no vacancy exists, restated its 31 July position that three of the four signatories of the 19 April proclamation did not hold the office of Undang on that date, and said that no enquiry under Article 10(1) had taken place and that Tuanku Muhriz was given neither notice nor an opportunity to be heard (Malay Mail, 14 September 2026). The DKU described the signing of the 5 September document by six individuals, among them the removed Undang Mubarak Dohak, as derhaka (treason) under Adat and law, and instructed its secretary, Raja Norazli Raja Nordin, to lodge a police report. It also questioned the need for the state government’s proposed Jawatankuasa Pendamai (reconciliation committee), on the ground that questions of Adat fall within Article 16, and said it would seek clarification of the committee’s terms of reference (The Star, 14 September 2026).

On the same day, Home Minister Saifuddin Nasution Ismail confirmed that police had opened an investigation paper into Menteri Besar Ismail Lasim’s claim that he signed the Surat Cara Proklamasi (Instrument of Proclamation) unwillingly and under duress (Malay Mail, 14 September 2026). State Assembly Speaker Awaludin Said said no motion of no confidence against Ismail had been filed for the next sitting, which Tuanku Muhriz is scheduled to open on 16 October, and that matters treated as unlawful under state law should first be settled by the authorities, including the DKU, before reaching the House (Malay Mail, 14 September 2026). The Court of Appeal’s e-review to fix a date for its decision on staying the committal proceedings was also listed for this day; no report of the date fixed had appeared at the time of writing.

15 Sep 2026, Tuesday: After State Executive Council Meeting No. 6 of 2026, Ismail issued a statement, which said the Menteri Besar has no unilateral power to remove the Yang di-Pertuan Besar or declare the office vacant, that “a proclamation does not, by itself, create constitutional authority”, and that a matter of this weight should be settled through constitutional and legal processes, including judicial determination (The Edge Malaysia, 15 September 2026).

16 Sep 2026, Wednesday: A statement issued by members of the executive council said the council, chaired by Ismail, had decided the previous day that the 19 April proclamation was valid, that it had been completed under Article 10(2) when Ismail signed it on 3 August, and that Tunku Nadzaruddin Tuanku Ja’afar had been recognised as Yang di-Pertuan Besar with immediate effect (FMT, 16 September 2026). Every council member except PAS’s Serting assemblyman Fairuz Isa had republished the statement (FMT, 17 September 2026). Lawyer Rosli Dahlan asked who had authorised a council statement signed off only as the line-up of council members (FMT, 16 September 2026).

The Undang of Luak Rembau, Hassan Ab Hamid, replied the same day that an executive council decision cannot set aside DKU advice on Adat, citing Article 16(3), and that the question is whether the power to remove a Ruler was exercised in compliance with Article 10 (FMT, 16 September 2026).

That night, the law firm Halim & Ismail, acting for the DKU and Raja Norazli as defendants in the Seremban originating summons, wrote to Ismail, the members of the council, the State Secretary and the State Legal Adviser. The letter described the announcement as tantamount to a coup and an act of treason, said it breached the interim injunction of 5 June, and stated that its clients intended to begin contempt proceedings (The Star, 17 September 2026, Malay Mail, 17 September 2026).

17 Sep 2026, Thursday: Ismail told reporters in Seremban that the council had discussed and unanimously decided on the proclamation at its 15 September meeting, and that the State Secretary had been instructed to proceed with gazetting it. He took no questions (The Star, 17 September 2026, FMT, 17 September 2026). The DKU said the council’s decision lay outside the council’s jurisdiction and had no legal effect, and that the council could not cure the defects the DKU had identified in the April proclamation (FMT, 17 September 2026). Former Menteri Besar Aminuddin Harun, who declined to sign the proclamation in April, said he did not recognise the 16 September announcement and called for action against the council members involved (FMT, 17 September 2026). DAP secretary-general Anthony Loke called on council members who no longer recognise Tuanku Muhriz to resign (Malay Mail, 17 September 2026), and Palong assemblyman Mustapha Nagoor, a council member, rejected the call (FMT, 17 September 2026).

That evening, the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) issued a statement which said the 19 April proclamation was invalid because it failed the mandatory requirements of Article 10, that there was no evidence any Article 10(1) ground applied to Tuanku Muhriz, that neither the Menteri Besar nor the council had unilateral power over the office, and that any gazettement would be unconstitutional. It noted that the Seremban High Court’s interlocutory injunction remained in force, and cited Article 16(3) on the finality of DKU advice (Bernama, 17 September 2026, FMT, 17 September 2026).

Late that night, the office of the State Secretary, Mohd Zafir Ibrahim, said it accepted the AGC’s advice, would take no action to gazette or implement the proclamation, and had referred the matter to the State Legal Adviser (Bernama, 17 September 2026).

Tuanku Muhriz returned from abroad the same night and was met at KLIA Terminal 1 by about 200 supporters, who were reported shouting “Daulat Tuanku” (long live the Ruler) and “tangkap penderhaka” (arrest the traitors) (FMT, 17 September 2026).

A letter was issued in the name of Tunku Nadzaruddin that purported to terminate Raja Norazli’s appointment as DKU secretary from 17 September, citing Article 25 (Malaysiakini, 17 September 2026). Article 25 provides that the secretary holds office at His Highness’s pleasure, and the DKU, the AGC and the State Secretary each proceed on the basis that Tuanku Muhriz remains His Highness.

18 Sep 2026, Friday: A secretariat speaking for the signatories, which describes itself as representing the Undang Yang Empat and the Tunku Besar of Tampin, said the AGC had no right to interfere in the state’s internal affairs, maintained that the removal had followed the prescribed procedure including an investigation, and called on the State Secretary to resign or face disciplinary action for declining the instruction of the government of the day (Malaysiakini, 18 September 2026). Utusan Malaysia reported the secretariat as citing a preliminary inquiry on 5 March and a further inquiry on 19 April, and as saying that gazetting is not a condition of a proclamation’s validity (Utusan Malaysia, 19 September 2026).

Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim urged the Menteri Besar not to be swayed by political pressure and said that any proposal from the Undangs or others must follow the proper procedures in full, beyond which the federal government would not interfere (The Star, 18 September 2026, Bernama, 18 September 2026).

After Friday prayers at Masjid Diraja Tuanku Munawir, Seri Menanti, Tuanku Muhriz received a memorandum of loyalty from a supporters’ secretariat, presented by Mohd Aluwi Sari. State Secretary Mohd Zafir Ibrahim, approached by reporters after the same prayers, declined to comment (Utusan Malaysia, 18 September 2026).

19 Sep 2026, Saturday: Emirul Sarifudin Nor Azmi, lawyer for Tunku Nadzaruddin, the four signatories and the Tunku Besar of Tampin, said the AGC’s view was an opinion rather than a binding order, and urged the executive council to press the Chief Secretary to the Government to begin disciplinary proceedings against the State Secretary for declining to gazette (FMT, 19 September 2026, Kosmo, 19 September 2026). The allegation of misconduct is Emirul’s, and the State Secretary has not responded to it publicly.

19 Sep 2026, Saturday: Former Menteri Besar Rais Yatim told Berita Harian that the AGC had no jurisdiction or mandate to intervene and that its view was no valid reference for the state administration. He cited Article 71 of the Federal Constitution as barring federal involvement in questions of succession, said the AGC’s statement risked appearing partisan, and described the AGC as lebih sudu daripada kuah (the spoon larger than the gravy, said of one who oversteps his place). He also said the State Secretary could not refuse an executive council decision to gazette and had acted without consulting the council, and that the AGC had misread the Adat preserved in the state Constitution (Berita Harian, 19 September 2026).

20 Sep 2026, Sunday: Istana Besar Seri Menanti issued a statement stating that Tuanku Muhriz had revoked the appointments of the members of the State Executive Council with immediate effect, for breaching their oath of office through their actions and statements of 15 September. The statement cited Article 38(5) of the Constitution, under which a member of the council other than the Menteri Besar holds office at the Ruler’s pleasure. It said the members had taken and signed their oath and pledge of allegiance before Tuanku Muhriz on 7 August, pledging loyalty to the Ruler and the royal institution, undertaking to preserve the state Constitution and acknowledging the authority of the DKU. Each affected member was informed in writing. The Menteri Besar, whose own appointment is unaffected, has been directed to submit a list of candidates for a new council under Article 38(2) and to ensure the administration continues without disruption (Malay Mail, 21 September 2026).

Read: What is Article 38 of the Negeri Sembilan Consitution 1959?

Commentary worth reading

17 September 2026, Negeri Sembilan: The constitution must prevail — Syed Hamid Albar: Syed Hamid Albar, a former law minister and foreign minister, argues in Malay Mail that the dispute should be decided by the words, structure and purpose of the state Constitution, and that where a genuine legal dispute exists the courts may have to settle it. He treats the Menteri Besar’s duress claim and the DKU’s position with equal legal caution, and his central point is that a document cannot create a constitutional power that does not otherwise exist. Readers should note that the piece was published on the morning the Menteri Besar confirmed the council’s decision, and it quotes approvingly the 15 September statement from which the Menteri Besar moved two days later (Malay Mail, 17 September 2026).

20 September 2026, COMMENT | Can N Sembilan throne change hands by announcement?: Lawyer GK Ganesan asks whether a throne can change hands by announcement and answers from the text. Article 10 lets the Undangs call upon the Ruler to withdraw or abdicate, on stated grounds and after a full and complete enquiry, and Article 11 fills a vacancy only once one has lawfully opened. He sets the Article 29 requirement that the Undangs act by at least three of their number against the dispute over whether each signatory held office, and he recalls the Federal Court’s 1980 decision in Othman Baginda, in which the court declined to rule on the appointment of an Undang of Jelebu two years before the ouster clause in Article 16(3) was added. The column first appeared on the author’s own site (GKG Legal, 16 September 2026, Malaysiakini, 20 September 2026).

20 September 2026, Calls grow for arrest of Nadzaruddin, Exco, for treason: The Vibes pulls together the week’s public scenes, from the crowd of about 200 at KLIA to more than 500 at Friday prayers in Seri Menanti, some wearing shirts reading Waghih-waghih Nogori sayang Tuanku Muhriz (the heirs of Negeri Sembilan love Tuanku Muhriz). It sets them beside the calls for arrests made by Aminuddin Harun and by the DKU’s lawyers (The Vibes, 20 September 2026).

20 September 2026, Was deposing a ruler part of your manifesto, Anwar asks Umno - Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim said the full weight of the government machinery would be deployed to defend constitutional monarchy. He said any dispute over the institution should be resolved under the state Constitution and the law rather than through the media or political parties, and that “it is not political parties that determine who becomes the ruler”. He asked by what right a state executive council could meet to depose a ruler, and whether that had appeared in any election manifesto (FMT, 20 September 2026).

What we are watching for

28 September 2026: Case management before the Seremban High Court in the contempt proceedings, in which the DKU and its secretary are seeking to have six individuals cited for contempt over the alleged breach of the interim injunction of 5 June. Justice Roz Mawar Rozain adjourned the matter to this date to receive updates on the parties’ legal challenges (FMT, 28 July 2026).

7 October 2026: The parties return to the Kuala Lumpur High Court to tell Justice Norliza Othman whether the judicial review brought by Mubarak and the three Undangs will continue in Kuala Lumpur or move to Seremban. The applications by the DKU, its secretary and two Undangs to intervene remain pending (Malay Mail, 10 August 2026). The application seeks mandamus to compel the Menteri Besar to sign the proclamation; the applicants now say he signed it on 3 August.

16 October 2026: Opening of the State Legislative Assembly’s five-day sitting, which Tuanku Muhriz is scheduled to officiate (Malay Mail, 14 September 2026).

19 October 2026: Case management at the Court of Appeal in the six’s appeal against the Seremban High Court’s grant of leave to the DKU and Raja Norazli to commence committal proceedings (Malay Mail, 7 September 2026).

Whether the police make any statement concerning the Menteri Besar’s report of 8 September.
Whether the Menteri Besar identifies those he says applied pressure on him to sign the 3 August proclamation.
Whether the DKU and its secretary, Raja Norazli Raja Nordin, file contempt proceedings against the members of the executive council.

New posts written by this publication last week

Was It Derhaka? Six Moments in the Negeri Sembilan Crisis
Updated: Did the Menteri Besar Sign the Proclamation Against Tuanku Muhriz on 3 August?, now covering the Menteri Besar’s statement of 15 September and the events of 16 and 17 September.

Sources:

About Weekly Round-Ups

Weekly Round-Ups are published every Monday morning. Each round-up covers what happened the previous week, what we are watching for in the week ahead, and links to posts published that week.

How to manage your subscription

When you subscribe to this Substack, you are subscribed to both formats by default: regular posts and Weekly Round-Ups.

To receive only the Weekly Round-Ups:

From any email: scroll to the bottom and click Unsubscribe or Manage subscription. You will see the option to opt out of regular posts while keeping the Weekly Round-Up.
From the website: go to Account Settings on Substack, find Anak Nogori under your subscriptions, and toggle off Posts while leaving Weekly Round-Ups on.

To unsubscribe entirely, click Unsubscribe at the bottom of any email, or use Substack’s account settings.

If you are new to this Substack and are not sure where to begin, visit our Start Here page, where we list all our articles organised by theme.

Start Here

Was It Derhaka? Six Moments in the Negeri Sembilan Crisis

Anak Nogori — Fri, 18 Sep 2026 08:20:49 GMT

What does derhaka mean?

Derhaka has no statutory definition in Malaysian law. It belongs instead to the older language of Malay kingship, describing treason, disobedience, disloyalty or rebellion against a Ruler.

However, where conduct described as derhaka also involves an attempt to remove a Ruler, statements concerning a Ruler or alleged defiance of a court order, the legal questions arise under separate areas of law.

Three areas of law are relevant here:

Section 121B of the Penal Code makes it an offence to compass, imagine, invent, devise or intend the deprivation or deposition of a Ruler, his heirs or successors from the rule of a State. Following amendments in 2023, the offence carries imprisonment for between 30 and 40 years and liability to a fine.

The Sedition Act 1948 has been used in cases involving statements concerning Rulers.
Contempt of court arises where a court order is alleged to have been breached and is determined by the court.

Six acts in the 2026 Negeri Sembilan royal crisis have been called derhaka or treasonous. This piece sets out each one, who applied the word, and where the accusation stands today.

1. The 19 April declaration (19 April 2026)

What happened. A declaration purporting to remove Tuanku Muhriz as Yang di-Pertuan Besar was signed by Mubarak Dohak, together with Maarof Mat Rashad, Muhammed Abdullah and Abdul Rahim Yasin, who signed respectively as the Undangs of Luak Sungei Ujong, Jelebu, Johol and Rembau.

Who used the word. The Telaga Undang of Luak Sungei Ujong, Sarifah Norzaidah Al-Qadri, described Mubarak’s participation as penderhakaan (an act of derhaka) and called for legal action (FMT, 20 April 2026). Constitutional lawyer Malik Imtiaz Sarwar separately drew attention to the Penal Code provisions concerning the wrongful deposition of a Ruler (FMT, 23 April 2026).

Where it stands. Mubarak’s removal as Undang was acknowledged by the DKU on 17 April 2026. Menteri Besar Aminuddin and the state government also rejected the declaration, stating that the declaration could not be accepted or recognised because Mubarak no longer held authority as Undang (Malay Mail, 20 April 2026). The DKU subsequently advised that the 19 April declaration had no constitutional effect because the Article 10 requirements had not been satisfied and the necessary office-holders were not in place (Malay Mail, 20 April 2026, Malay Mail, 14 September 2026).

2. The State Assembly boycott (23 April 2026)

What happened. Mubarak, Maarof, Muhammed Abdullah and Abdul Rahim, together with the Tunku Besar Tampin, stayed away from the opening of the State Legislative Assembly after advising that the ceremony be postponed. Tuanku Muhriz attended and delivered the royal address. The Speaker said the proceedings were unaffected by their absence (Malay Mail, 23 April 2026, Malay Mail, 23 April 2026).

Who used the word. Former New Straits Times Group chief executive Kalimullah Hassan asked on Instagram whether chieftains absenting themselves from their Ruler at an official function amounted to derhaka.

“Never have I seen in any official Royal function — be it in Malaysia where we have nine monarchs — or anywhere else in the world of monarchy such a sight of palace chieftains who abandoned their ruler like at the opening of the Negri Sembilan legislative assembly.
I wonder — is this what is termed derhaka (treason, disobedience, disloyalty, or rebellion)? It’s a tragedy that this is what it has come to. Especially in Negri Sembilan, a federation stretching back a few hundred years. The empty chairs, in my view, are a burden of shame on those who chose to indignify the occasion.”

Source: @kalimullah

Where it stands. No institution has subsequently characterised the boycott itself as derhaka, and no legal consequence has been attached to the five empty chairs. The significance is instead political and symbolic: it made visible, for the first time at a major State ceremony, the competing claims over who the chieftains recognised as Yang di-Pertuan Besar.

3. The Melaka hotel proclamation (5 June 2026)

What happened. On 5 June, Rais Yatim announced that Tunku Nadzaruddin Tuanku Ja’afar had been proclaimed the 12th Yang di-Pertuan Besar at a hotel in Alor Gajah, Melaka, with the proclamation read by Maarof on behalf of the four signatories (Malay Mail, 5 June 2026).

The proclamation was followed by attempts to give Tunku Nadzaruddin the public attributes of the office. Tunku Besar Tampin issued a directive dated 9 June instructing the Negeri Sembilan mufti to include prayers for him as the 12th Yang di-Pertuan Besar in Friday sermons across the relevant Luak and Tampin. The mufti said the matter lay outside his office (Malaysiakini, 18 June 2026). On 19 June, a prayer for Tunku Nadzaruddin was read during Friday prayers at Masjid Dato’ Undang Luak Jelebu (Malaysiakini, 19 June 2026).

Who used the word. The Straits Times later reported that the decision to revoke Rais Yatim’s state honours followed a series of actions stretching back several years. Among them was his involvement from 2022 in encouraging the Undang of Jelebu to refer to himself as “Sultan”. The same report said his part in the 5 June proclamation was viewed as treasonous by some in the royal court, and that he had been serving as legal adviser to the Undangs (The Straits Times, 31 July 2026).

Where it stands. The palace declared the installation ceremony invalid under the State Constitution, laws and customs (FMT, 9 June 2026). On 30 July, Tuanku Muhriz revoked two state honours conferred on Rais Yatim. The awards registrar said the action was taken to preserve the dignity of the royal institution (Malay Mail, 30 July 2026). The Palace also said that Tunku Nadzaruddin had relinquished his hereditary title of Tunku Panglima Besar by attempting to accept the purported appointment , Malay Mail, 9 June 2026). Separately, the DKU and its secretary commenced contempt proceedings arising from the breach of the High Court order. On 8 July, the High Court found a prima facie case and granted leave for those proceedings to begin (FMT, 8 July 2026).

4. The proclamation signed by the Menteri Besar (3 August 2026)

What happened. Menteri Besar Datuk Ismail Lasim signed a proclamation instrument at Istana Laguna Biru, Port Dickson, confirming the proclamation to remove Tuanku Muhriz, with Maarof stating that all procedures had been fulfilled. Subsequently, Ismail issued a media statement stating that he signed it unwillingly and under duress, and that the document fails the requirements of Article 10 and is therefore invalid and unenforceable (Straits Times, 8 September 2026, Malay Mail, 9 September 2026).

Where it stands. Ismail has lodged two police reports, the Home Minister has confirmed them, and police have opened investigation papers (Malay Mail, 15 September 2026). Nine days after lodging that report, on 17 September, Ismail u-turned on his earlier statement and said he endorsed the EXCO statement of 16 September (FMT, 17 September 2026).

5. The “Undang” Media Statement (5 September 2026)

What happened. Six signatories called upon the State Secretary to give effect to the proclamation said to have been completed by the Menteri Besar’s signature on 3 August (see 5 September “Undang” Media Statement). The DKU subsequently said that four of the six did not hold the offices in whose names they acted (FMT, 14 September 2026).

Who used the word. This time, the DKU itself did. In the DKU Media Statement issued on 14 September 2026, The DKU said that signing the 5 September document using titles of offices that were not held and issuing directions to State Government officers under authority that was not lawfully possessed could be regarded as derhaka in the eyes of adat and the law.

Where it stands. The DKU directed its secretary to lodge a police report. The DKU also reaffirmed that there was no vacancy in the office of Yang di-Pertuan Besar and that State Government officers should continue to recognise and deal with Tuanku Muhriz in that capacity (Malay Mail, 14 September 2026).

6. The State Executive Council statement (16 September 2026)

What happened. On 16 September, an EXCO Media Statement was posted by 9 out of 10 EXCO members on their Facebook pages. This statement declared the 19 April proclamation valid and recognised Tunku Nadzaruddin as the new Yang di-Pertuan Besar. The following day, Ismail endorsed the statement. He said the proclamation had been discussed and unanimously accepted by the Executive Council at its meeting on 15 September and that the State Secretary had been instructed to proceed with the process of gazetting it (FMT, 17 September 2026, Malay Mail, 17 September 2026).

Who used the word. Several people and institutions responded in those terms.

Former Menteri Besar Datuk Seri Aminuddin Harun, who said the April proclamation had previously been presented to him and that he had declined to sign it, described the Executive Council’s conduct as derhaka and called for police action (FMT, 17 September 2026).
Seremban MP and DAP secretary-general Anthony Loke Siew Fook said Executive Council members who no longer recognised Tuanku Muhriz could be regarded as derhaka and should resign (Malaysiakini, 17 September 2026).
Messrs Halim & Ismail, acting for Raja Norazli and the DKU as defendants in Seremban High Court Originating Summons NA-24NCvC-240-05/2026, wrote to Ismail and his executive council members, the State Secretary and the State Legal Adviser. The letter said the announcement was intended to subvert Tuanku Muhriz’s executive authority and to remove him from the throne, and described the conduct as “tantamount to a coup d’état and an act of treason”, which it said should be punishable under the Penal Code. It also said the announcement breached the interim injunctions of 5 June, and that the DKU and its secretary intend to begin contempt proceedings against the recipients.

Where it stands. The DKU said the Executive Council had acted outside its jurisdiction and that its decision had no legal effect. It maintained that matters relating to Malay custom, including questions concerning the office of Yang di-Pertuan Besar, fell within the constitutional structure governing the DKU under Article 16 (DKU Media Statement, 17 September 2026).

The Attorney General’s Chambers separately said that the Menteri Besar and State Executive Council had no unilateral power to terminate or vacate the office of Yang di-Pertuan Besar. It said the validity and legal effect of the 19 April proclamation had to be determined through the constitutional and legal processes provided by the Negeri Sembilan Constitution, and that the Executive Council’s announcement had no legal effect (AGC Media Statement, Malay Mail, 17 September 2026, FMT, 17 September 2026).

Later that day, the State Secretary’s Office said that, after considering the AGC’s position and consulting the State Legal Adviser, it accepted that the Executive Council had no power under the Constitution to determine the removal of the Yang di-Pertuan Besar. It therefore would neither gazette nor implement the proclamation (State Secretary Media Statement, The Star, 17 September 2026, FMT, 18 September 2026).

What happens next

Allegations of derhaka have now been made repeatedly, police reports have been lodged and at least one investigation is under way. Yet, no criminal charges arising from the dispute have been brought.

That delay has consequences of its own. Until the authorities decide whether there is a case to prosecute, each side remains free to advance its version of events and accuse the other of derhaka, while the most serious question raised by those accusations remains unanswered: does any of this conduct amount to a criminal offence?

If conduct of this kind is ultimately found to amount a criminal offence, the speed and decisiveness of the institutional response will matter. A prolonged gap between serious allegations, police reports and legal resolution risks creating a precedent of its own: that competing claims to royal authority can be asserted, repeated and acted upon while the consequences remain uncertain.

For Negeri Sembilan, that would reach beyond the individuals involved in the present dispute. The constitutional and customary institutions depend on clarity over who may exercise their powers and how challenges to a Ruler are resolved. The same concern extends more broadly to Malaysia’s royal institutions. Where the boundaries protecting those institutions are invoked, they ultimately have to be defined and, where the law has been broken, enforced. Otherwise, each new dispute has more room to test them.

Sources:

State Secretary Media Statement, 17 September 2026

Anak Nogori — Fri, 18 Sep 2026 04:49:17 GMT

Translation

Media Statement
State Secretary of Negeri Sembilan
17 September 2026

The Office of the State Secretary of Negeri Sembilan refers to the statement made by the Menteri Besar of Negeri Sembilan on 17 September 2026, during an interview session with members of the media, concerning a directive to gazette the Proclamation dated 19 April 2026.
In connection with this, the administration has referred the matter to the State Legal Adviser of Negeri Sembilan to ensure that any action required is carried out in accordance with current law and the Laws of the Constitution of Negeri Sembilan 1959 (UUTKNS 1959).
Further, the Attorney General’s Chambers, in a media statement dated 17 September 2026, stated, among other things, that the Proclamation dated 19 April 2026 is invalid because it does not comply with the mandatory requirements of Article 10 of the UUTKNS 1959.
On the legal position, this administration also accepts the view of the Attorney General’s Chambers that members of the State Executive Council (MMKN) of Negeri Sembilan have no jurisdiction, authority or power under the UUTKNS 1959 to make any announcement concerning the Proclamation. In addition, there is no legal basis for MMKN members to rely on the Proclamation dated 19 April 2026 for their announcement.
On the basis of the above, and of the Attorney General’s Chambers’ media statement of 17 September 2026 as a whole, this administration accepts that advice and will take no gazetting action or any other implementing action in respect of the Proclamation, because such action would be unlawful and unconstitutional.

If you are new to this Substack and are not sure where to begin, visit our Start Here page, where we list all our articles organised by theme.

Start Here

AGC Media Statement, 17 September 2026

Anak Nogori — Thu, 17 Sep 2026 14:11:30 GMT

Reference: PN.PRO.100-3/6/4 Jld.2 (105)

Prime Minister’s Department
Attorney General’s Chambers

MEDIA STATEMENT

ISSUE CONCERNING THE MEDIA STATEMENT OF THE NEGERI SEMBILAN STATE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

The Attorney General’s Chambers takes note of the document “Media Statement of the Negeri Sembilan State Executive Council: Decision of the State Executive Council, Negeri Sembilan No. 6 of 2026 (15 September 2026)”. First, the Chambers is of the view that the Menteri Besar and the State Executive Council have no unilateral power to terminate or vacate the office of Yang di-Pertuan Besar. The validity and effect of the Proclamation must be determined through lawful constitutional and legal processes, in accordance with the law, in particular the Laws of the Constitution of Negeri Sembilan 1959 (UUTKNS 1959).

The Chambers has given a preliminary view that the Proclamation dated 19 April 2026 is invalid because it does not comply with the mandatory requirements of Article 10 of UUTKNS. In particular, there is no evidence that any of the disqualifying factors set out in Article 10(1) applies to DYMM Tuanku Muhriz ibni Almarhum Tuanku Munawir. Although the Dato’ Undangs clearly have the power to take action to remove DYMM the Yang di-Pertuan Besar of Negeri Sembilan from the throne, Article 10 also sets out the procedure and the grounds that must be considered before the Dato’ Undangs can make such a decision. To date, there are no facts showing that this procedure has been followed.

A further issue arises because some of the Dato’ Undangs who signed the Proclamation no longer lawfully hold office, having been removed by the Adat of their respective Luak. The legitimacy of several of the Undangs who signed the Proclamation is disputed because their removal was carried out through the Adat of their respective Luak. The composition of the Undang Yang Empat was therefore incomplete at the material time.

The Chambers respects the position of the Dato’ Undangs of Negeri Sembilan and accepts that the appointment and removal of each of them is governed by the customary rules of their respective Luak. At the same time, the Chambers notes that UUTKNS 1959 also establishes the Dewan Keadilan dan Undang (DKU). Under Article 16 of UUTKNS 1959, questions of Malay custom, including the election, appointment, resignation and removal of an Undang, and any matter referred by the Yang di-Pertuan Besar, fall within the jurisdiction of the DKU. Under Article 16(3) of UUTKNS 1959, the DKU’s advice on such questions is final and cannot be challenged or questioned in any court on any ground.

Accordingly, the media statement or announcement by members of the Negeri Sembilan State Executive Council is considered to have no legal effect, since they have no jurisdiction, authority or power under UUTKNS 1959 to make that announcement. There is also no legal basis for members of the State Executive Council to rely on the Proclamation dated 19 April 2026 for their announcement. On this basis, gazetting or any other act to implement the Proclamation would be invalid because it is unconstitutional.

The Chambers further notes that this matter is currently before the High Court of Malaya in Seremban, and that an interlocutory injunction remains in force. The Chambers therefore calls on all parties to respect the court process and allow it to be resolved in an orderly manner.

Attorney General’s Chambers
17 September 2026

If you are new to this Substack and are not sure where to begin, visit our Start Here page, where we list all our articles organised by theme.

Start Here

Anak Nogori's Substack

Who Is the Undang of Johol and Why Do 70 Companies Raise Questions That Demand Answers?

What the official SSM records show

The rare earth connection

The mining and resources companies

Other notable companies

Companies that hold his title and address

Directorships across a breadth of sectors

Why 47 active directorships is not an ordinary number

The pattern across the ”Undang Yang Empat1”

The questions that must be answered

What SPRM should do

A note on fairness

Summary

Related Posts:

Sources:

What Is the Negeri Sembilan Royal Crisis? A Summary of the Constitutional Dispute

Who are the key players in this crisis?

What makes Negeri Sembilan’s monarchy unique?

What happened before 19 April 2026?

The removal of Mubarak Dohak

What happened on 19 April 2026?

How has the crisis developed since April?

June: an injunction, and a proclamation in Melaka

June to October: three new Undangs

August: a snap state election, a new Menteri Besar, and a signature

September: the State Executive Council and the Ruler

The court track

The political track

What does the crisis expose?

Where does the crisis stand?

Go Deeper:

Sources:

Caesar City Corporation Presentation Deck (Undang of Johol)

Related Posts:

Tunku Nadzaruddin Letter to Menteri Besar, 20 October 2026

Joint “Undang Yang Empat” and Tunku Besar Tampin Media Statement, 20 October 2026

Anak Nogori Weekly Round-Up (12-18 October, 2026)

What happened last week

Commentary worth reading

What we are watching for

New posts written by this publication last week

Sources:

About Weekly Round-Ups

Anak Nogori Weekly Round-Up (5-11 October, 2026)

What happened last week

Commentary worth reading

What we are watching for

New posts written by this publication last week

Sources:

About Weekly Round-Ups

Joint “Undang Yang Empat” and Tunku Besar Tampin Media Statement, 5 October 2026

Who is speaking?

The Dewan’s own records refute the Statement

Article 10: what the text demands

Article 29: four, two, or one

The proclamation is not a veto power of the Menteri Besar

Two dates, one conclusion

The Ruler, the Dewan and the Court

Closing

Anak Nogori Weekly Round-Up (28 September-4 October, 2026)

What happened last week

Commentary worth reading

What we are watching for

New posts written by this publication last week

Sources:

About Weekly Round-Ups

DKU Official Statement, 4 October 2026

Related Posts:

Joint “Undang Yang Empat” and Tunku Besar Tampin Media Statement, 2 October 2026

Anak Nogori Weekly Round-Up (21-27 September, 2026)

What happened last week

Commentary worth reading

What we are watching for

New posts written by this publication last week

Sources:

About Weekly Round-Ups

What Is the Sedition Act 1948 and How Does It Apply to the Negeri Sembilan Crisis?

The Akta Hasutan 1948 (Sedition Act 1948)

Section 3(1): the six seditious tendencies

The pattern across the ”Undang Yang Empat¹”