[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]

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]

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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.

1. YBhg Dato’ Senior Private Secretary to KDYMM SPB Yang di-Pertuan Agong

2. YM Keeper of the Rulers’ Seal

3. 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

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.

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 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.

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:

1. It is full of statements that contradict one another.

2. It fails to deny that an investigation (enquiry) was carried out on 5 March 2026.

3. 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.

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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:

1. 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.

2. The Article 11 Proclamation electing DYMM Tuanku Nadzaruddin is “in order and complete under the UUTKNS 1959”.

3. Tuanku Muhriz is officially announced as having been deposed, and DYMM Tuanku Nadzaruddin is recognised as Yang di-Pertuan Besar.

4. 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:

1. The text of Articles 10, 28 and 29 is not answered.

2. The minutes of the sittings of 17 April and 31 July are not shown.

3. The Undang complained against was never heard.

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

1. YTM Dato’ Klana Petra Dato’ Haji Mubarak bin Thahak, Undang Luak Sungei Ujong.

2. YTM Dato’ Mendika Menteri Akhirulzaman Dato’ Maarof bin Haji Mat Rashad, Undang Luak Jelebu.

3. YTM Dato’ Johan Pahlawan Lela Perkasa Sitiawan Dato’ Muhammed bin Haji Abdullah, Undang Luak Johol.

4. 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

Download

Footnote:

The allegations in this commentary are those of its signatories.

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

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.

OFFICIAL STATEMENT
SECRETARY OF THE DEWAN KEADILAN DAN UNDANG
NEGERI SEMBILAN

INTRODUCTION

1. 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”).

2. 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.

3. 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

4. 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.

5. 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

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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

10. 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.

11. 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).

12. 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.

13. 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

14. 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.

15. 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

16. 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).

17. 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.

18. 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”

19. 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.

20. 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.

21. 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.

22. 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.

23. 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.

24. 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.

25. 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.

26. 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.

27. 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.

28. 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

29. 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.

30. 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.

31. 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

32. 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.

33. 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.

34. No historical document may be quoted selectively to override the written requirements of Article 10.

35. 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

36. 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.

37. 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.

38. 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.

39. 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.

40. 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.

41. 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.

42. 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

43. 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).

44. 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.

45. 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.

46. 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

47. 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.

48. 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.

49. 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”).

50. 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

51. 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.

52. 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

53. 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.

54. 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

55. 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.

56. 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.

57. 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

DKU Statement, 4 October

6.51MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Related Posts:

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 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.

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

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. 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.

15. 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

16. 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.

17. 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

18. 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”.

19. 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.

20. 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.

21. 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.

22. 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.

23. 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

24. 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.

25. 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

26. 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.

27. 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;

(c) Undangs are elected according to the custom of the Luak (Article 14(1)), and are not appointed by royal command; and

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

28. 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

29. 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.

30. 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

31. 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.

32. 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

33. 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.

34. 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

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.

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

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.

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.

Related Posts:

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 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.

Translation

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

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. They breached this oath through their actions and statements on 15 September.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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 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.

Translation

Media Statement
State Secretary of Negeri Sembilan
17 September 2026

1. 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.

2. 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).

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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

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.

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 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.

MEDIA STATEMENT
DEWAN KEADILAN DAN UNDANG NEGERI SEMBILAN DARUL KHUSUS

The Dewan Keadilan dan Undang Negeri Sembilan (”the Dewan”) refers to its media statement dated 13 September 2026. Since then, two statements have been issued, namely:

(a) the Media Statement of the Menteri Besar of Negeri Sembilan dated 15 September 2026, following State Executive Council Meeting No. 6 of 2026; and

(b) a document titled “Decision of the Negeri Sembilan State Executive Council No. 6 of 2026” dated 16 September 2026. In connection with this, the Dewan determines the following:

1. The Menteri Besar’s statement dated 15 September 2026 is consistent with the Constitution of the State of Negeri Sembilan (”UUTKNS 1959”)

The Dewan welcomes the statement of YAB Menteri Besar of Negeri Sembilan dated 15 September 2026, which stresses that the Menteri Besar has no unilateral power to terminate or vacate the office of the Yang di-Pertuan Besar, and that the validity and effect of the Proclamation must be determined through lawful constitutional and legal process, including judicial determination. This position is consistent with UUTKNS 1959 and with the Dewan’s determination.

2. Questions of Adat and the position of the Yang di-Pertuan Besar fall within the jurisdiction of the Dewan

Under Article 16 of UUTKNS 1959, questions of Malay custom, including the election, appointment, resignation and dismissal of the offices of Yang di-Pertuan Besar and Undang, fall within the jurisdiction of the Dewan. Under Article 16(3) of UUTKNS 1959, the Dewan’s advice on such questions is final and may not be challenged or called into question in any court on any ground. The State Executive Council and the State Government have no jurisdiction to determine the validity of the Proclamation or the position of the Yang di-Pertuan Besar.

3. The “Decision of the State Executive Council No. 6” dated 16 September 2026 has no legal effect

Insofar as the document dated 16 September 2026 purports to confirm the removal from the throne of DYMM Tuanku Muhriz ibni Almarhum Tuanku Munawir, to recognise the election of a new Yang di-Pertuan Besar, and to direct its immediate implementation, it touches on matters outside the jurisdiction of the State Executive Council and is contrary to the binding determination of the Dewan. It is therefore unconstitutional, invalid and of no effect whatsoever.

4. The Proclamation dated 19 April 2026 remains defective and void

The Dewan reaffirms its determination that the Proclamation dated 19 April 2026 was defective from the outset: no inquiry under Article 10(1) of UUTKNS 1959 was ever carried out; three of the four people who signed it did not hold the office of Undang on that date; and following the refusal of the then Menteri Besar to sign it, the function under Article 10(2) of UUTKNS 1959 had already been discharged, so that the proclamation lapsed and became void. The State Executive Council cannot cure these defects.

5. The proclamation of election under Article 11 of UUTKNS 1959 is also invalid

Any proclamation purporting to elect a new Yang di-Pertuan Besar rests on the same defective foundation and was signed by people who did not lawfully hold the office of Undang. It is likewise invalid and of no legal effect.

6. The prerogative of the Undang Yang Empat must be exercised by lawful Undangs and in accordance with UUTKNS 1959

The prerogative of the Undang Yang Empat referred to in the document dated 16 September 2026 may only be exercised by Undangs lawfully holding office, and in accordance with the conditions and procedures set by the Constitution. Because those conditions and procedures were not met, no valid prerogative of that kind arose.

7. State Government officers are not required to act on the document

As stated by the Dewan on 13 September 2026, no State Government officer is required to act on any instruction based on the document dated 5 September 2026 or the document dated 16 September 2026. Acting on those documents would be contrary to UUTKNS 1959 and to the binding determination of the Dewan.

8. This matter is before the court

The Dewan notes that this matter is the subject of prosiding (proceedings) in the High Court of Malaya at Seremban, and that court orders remain in force. The Dewan calls on all parties to respect the court process and refrain from taking any step that could obstruct or interfere with it.

9. The position of DYMM Tuanku Muhriz ibni Almarhum Tuanku Munawir remains unchanged

The Dewan reaffirms that DYMM Tuanku Muhriz ibni Almarhum Tuanku Munawir remains the lawful Yang di-Pertuan Besar of Negeri Sembilan and Yang di-Pertua (President) of the Dewan. There is no vacancy and no successor for as long as the office is lawfully held.

The customary institutions of Negeri Sembilan, including the institution of the Yang di-Pertuan Besar and the institution of the Undang, belong to no party or individual, but are an amanah (trust) for all anak buah (clan members) and waris (heirs). The Dewan calls on all parties to uphold UUTKNS 1959, respect the jurisdiction and determinations of the Dewan, and resolve any dispute through lawful constitutional and legal process.

Sekian (That is all).

Secretary
Dewan Keadilan dan Undang Negeri Sembilan Darul Khusus
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 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.

Translation

HALIM & ISMAIL
Peguambela & Peguamcara (Advocates & Solicitors)
Wisma HM, No. 43, Level 1, Jalan Dr. Krishnan, 70000 Seremban, Negeri Sembilan Darul Khusus

Partners and associates: Abd Halim bin Mohd, Suzian binti Mukhtar, Shafrin Halim, Syazwan Halim, Ahmad Affendi bin Mohd Nasir

• Ruj. Kami (Our Ref): HI/GEN/0077/2026/SH

• Ruj. Tuan (Your Ref): (Please advise)

• Tarikh (Date): 16 September 2026

Addressees, each served dengan e-mel / tangan (by email and by hand):

1. YAB Dato’ Hj. Ismail bin Hj. Lasim, Menteri Besar of Negeri Sembilan

2. YB Dato’ Mohd Faizal bin Ramli, State Executive Councillor

3. YB Dato’ Haji Zaifulbahri bin Haji Idris, State Executive Councillor

4. YB Dato’ Hj. Mustapha bin Nagoor, State Executive Councillor

5. YB Tuan Siow Kong Choon, State Executive Councillor

6. YB Puan Siti Nur Umaira binti Hasim, State Executive Councillor

7. YB Datuk Haji Mohd Asna bin Haji Amin, State Executive Councillor

8. YB Dato’ Mohd Razi bin Mohd Ali, State Executive Councillor

9. YB Tuan Suhaimizan bin Bizar, State Executive Councillor

10. YB Tuan Mohd Fairuz bin Mohd Isa, State Executive Councillor

11. YB Datuk Razali bin Abu Samah, State Executive Councillor

12. Dato’ Mohd Zafir bin Ibrahim, Setiausaha Kerajaan Negeri Sembilan (State Secretary)

13. Dato’ Muzalmah binti Mustapha Kamal, Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Sembilan (State Legal Adviser)

YAB Dato’ / YB Dato’ / YB Tuan / YB Puan,

SEREMBAN HIGH COURT ORIGINATING SUMMONS NO.: NA-24NCvC-240-05/2026
PLAINTIFFS: YTM Dato’ Klana Petra Dato’ Haji Mubarak bin Thahak & 5 others
DEFENDANTS: Raja Norazli bin Raja Nordin & 2 others

We refer to the above matter, in which we act for the First Defendant and the Second Defendant (respectively the Secretary of the Dewan Keadilan dan Undang Negeri Sembilan (”DKU”) and the DKU).

2. Our clients have drawn our attention to the Media Statement of the Negeri Sembilan State Executive Council, Negeri Sembilan State Executive Council Decision No. 6 of 2026 (15 September 2026).

3. Our clients note that YAB Dato’ / YB Dato’ / YB Tuan / YB Puan relied on the Proclamation dated 19 April 2026 for the purposes of the above media statement. That Proclamation does not meet the mandatory requirements set out in Article 10 of the Constitution of the State of Negeri Sembilan 1959 (”UUTKNS”), and is therefore void, invalid and of no legal effect.

4. Our clients further note that YAB Dato’ / YB Dato’ / YB Tuan / YB Puan announced as follows:

“... it is hereby officially announced that DYMM Tuanku Muhriz ibni Almarhum Tuanku Munawir has been removed from the throne of the Government of Negeri Sembilan by YTM Undang Yang Empat and DYMM Tuanku Nadzaruddin ibni Almarhum Tuanku Ja’afar has been elected and recognised as the new Yang di-Pertuan Besar of Negeri Sembilan with immediate effect.”

5. Our clients are deeply shocked by the announcement made by YAB Dato’ / YB Dato’ / YB Tuan / YB Puan. In this regard, our clients take the position that YAB Dato’ / YB Dato’ / YB Tuan / YB Puan have no jurisdiction, authority or power to make the announcement set out above, and that the announcement is unconstitutional, void, invalid and of no legal effect.

6. It is our clients’ firm position that the action of YAB Dato’ / YB Dato’ / YB Tuan / YB Puan in issuing the announcement set out above is intended to undermine the executive authority of DYMM Tuanku Muhriz ibni Almarhum Tuanku Munawir under the UUTKNS, and is further intended to overthrow and dethrone DYMM Tuanku Muhriz ibni Almarhum Tuanku Munawir.

7. The action of YAB Dato’ / YB Dato’ / YB Tuan / YB Puan is tantamount to a seizure of power (”coup d’état“) and an act of treason, which ought to be punishable under the Penal Code and all other relevant laws.

8. Further, YAB Dato’ / YB Dato’ / YB Tuan / YB Puan are surely aware that the High Court, on 5 June 2026, granted, inter alia (among other things), the following injunctive Orders:

“(1) Pending the disposal of Enclosures 10 and 12 and until further order of this Honourable Court, the Plaintiffs, whether by themselves, their servants, agents, representatives, nominees, appointees, workers, any committee, body or persons purportedly established, appointed or authorised by them, and howsoever otherwise, are restrained from:

...

(e) taking any steps, making any decisions and/or implementing any decisions concerning the administration, governance, proceedings, powers and affairs of the DKU; and

(f) otherwise taking any steps which alter, prejudice or interfere with the status quo concerning the administration, governance, proceedings and affairs of the DKU as it existed immediately before 21 May 2026, being the date on which the Plaintiffs issued a document titled ‘Sabda Memerintahkan Setiausaha Memanggil Sidang Khas Dewan Keadilan dan Undang Negeri Sembilan‘ (Royal Command Directing the Secretary to Convene a Special Sitting of the Dewan Keadilan dan Undang Negeri Sembilan).”

We enclose a copy of the injunctive Orders dated 5 June 2026 for the attention of YAB Dato’ / YB Dato’ / YB Tuan / YB Puan.

9. Paragraphs 1(e) and 1(f) of the injunctive Orders set out above restrain the taking of any steps to, inter alia, change the composition of the DKU, which includes the President of the DKU, namely the Yang di-Pertuan Besar of Negeri Sembilan (see Article 19 of the UUTKNS). In other words, the installation of a new Yang di-Pertuan Besar of Negeri Sembilan while paragraphs 1(e) and 1(f) of the injunctive Orders remain in force would constitute a breach of those Orders.

10. Further, YAB Dato’ / YB Dato’ / YB Tuan / YB Puan are surely aware that on 8 July 2026, the High Court granted our clients leave to commence committal proceedings against the Plaintiffs for breach of the injunctive Orders dated 5 June 2026. In this regard, the High Court decided that there was a prima facie case of contempt of court against the Plaintiffs for breach of paragraphs 1(e) and 1(f) of the injunctive Orders because of, among other things, their involvement in the purported installation of Tunku Dato’ Seri Nadzaruddin ibni Almarhum Tuanku Ja’afar as Yang di-Pertuan Besar of Negeri Sembilan, which would amount to an unlawful replacement of the President of the DKU. We enclose a copy of the Orders dated 8 July 2026 for the attention of YAB Dato’ / YB Dato’ / YB Tuan / YB Puan.

11. We further note that on 15 September 2026, YAB Menteri Besar, on behalf of the State Executive Council (MMK), issued a media statement confirming that the Menteri Besar has no unilateral power to dismiss or vacate the office of the Yang di-Pertuan Besar, and that the validity and effect of the purported “letter in the form of a proclamation” must be determined in accordance with proper constitutional and legal process, including through judicial determination.

12. Our clients take the position that the announcement by YAB Dato’ / YB Dato’ / YB Tuan / YB Puan referred to in paragraph 4 above breaches the injunctive Orders dated 5 June 2026 [in paragraphs 1(e) and 1(f)] on the same grounds that led the High Court to grant leave for contempt proceedings on 8 July 2026.

13. Our clients intend to commence contempt of court proceedings against YAB Dato’ / YB Dato’ / YB Tuan / YB Puan for the breaches of the injunctive Orders dated 5 June 2026 set out above.

14. All our clients’ rights in this matter are reserved.

Yang benar (Yours faithfully),
[signature]
HALIM & ISMAIL
Lampiran-Lampiran (Enclosures)
s.k. (cc): Clients

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 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.

Translation

Decisions of the Negeri Sembilan State Executive Council Meeting No. 6 of 2026 (15 September 2026)

The Negeri Sembilan State Executive Council met on Tuesday, 15 September 2026, chaired by the Honourable Menteri Besar of Negeri Sembilan, Dato’ Ismail bin Lassim.

The Menteri Besar’s earlier media statement explained the functions and roles of the Menteri Besar, the State Government, the Institution of the Yang di-Pertuan Besar, the Undang Yang Empat (the four Undangs) and the Constitution of the State of Negeri Sembilan 1959.

We wish to announce that the Negeri Sembilan State Executive Council yesterday reached the following collective decisions:

1. The proclamation deposing His Majesty Tuanku Muhriz ibni Almarhum Tuanku Munawir under Article 10 of UUTKNS 1959, dated 19 April 2026, was signed and sealed by the lawful and serving Undangs of the Luak. It is the absolute prerogative of the Undang Yang Empat to elect and depose the Yang di-Pertuan Besar of Negeri Sembilan. This prerogative is guaranteed by Articles 32 and 79 of UUTKNS 1959 and Articles 71 and 181 of the Federal Constitution. The proclamation was also signed by the Honourable Menteri Besar Dato’ Ismail bin Lasim on 3 August 2026, which makes the proclamation complete under Article 10(2) of UUTKNS 1959.

2. The proclamation electing His Majesty Tuanku Nadzaruddin ibni Almarhum Tuanku Ja’afar under Article 11 of UUTKNS 1959, dated 19 April 2026, was also signed and sealed by the lawful and serving Undangs of the Luak. The proclamation is therefore in order and complete under UUTKNS 1959.

3. The meeting upholds the resolutions made by the Undang Yang Empat and respects their prerogative powers as enshrined in Adat and UUTKNS 1959. Accordingly, to give effect to the sabda (royal pronouncement) and resolutions of the Undang Yang Empat under the Article 10 and Article 11 proclamations of 19 April 2026, it is hereby officially announced that:

   • His Majesty Tuanku Muhriz ibni Almarhum Tuanku Munawir has been deposed from the throne of Negeri Sembilan by the Undang Yang Empat; and

   • His Majesty Tuanku Nadzaruddin ibni Almarhum Tuanku Ja’afar has been elected and recognised as the new Yang di-Pertuan Besar of Negeri Sembilan, with immediate effect.

4. The State Government Administration shall take immediate steps to implement this announcement, in compliance with the sabda and resolutions of the Undang Yang Empat.

Members of the Negeri Sembilan State Executive Council
Wednesday, 16 September 2026

EXCO Members who posted the statement on their Facebook Pages

This statement was posted on nine of the ten Exco members’ Facebook pages:

• Mohd Faizal Ramli (Linggi, Umno)

• Mohd Asna Amin (Lenggeng, Umno)

• Mohd Razi Mohd Ali (Sungai Lui, Umno)

• Mustapha Nagoor (Palong, Umno)

• Razali Abu Samah (Sikamat, PN–Wawasan)

• Siow Kong Choon (Chennah, MCA)

• Siti Nur Umaira Hasim (Labu, Umno)

• Suhaimizan Bizar (Gemencheh, Umno)

• Zaifulbahri Idris (Chembong, Umno)

Not seen posting:

• Mohd Fairuz Mohd Isa (Serting, PN–PAS)

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 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.

Full Translation

Media statement, Dewan Keadilan dan Undang, Negeri Sembilan Darul Khusus (dated 14 September 2026, on a special sitting of 13 September 2026)

The Dewan Keadilan dan Undang Negeri Sembilan (“Dewan”) convened a special sitting on 13 September 2026 corresponding to 1 Rabiulakhir 1448H and determined the following matters:

1. The Dewan reaffirms its determination of 31 July 2026

The Proclamation dated 19 April 2026 is invalid in the eyes of the Constitution. Three of the four persons who signed it did not hold the office of Undang according to the custom of their respective Luak on that date.

2. No inquiry was ever conducted

Article 10(1) of the Laws of the Constitution of Negeri Sembilan (UUTKNS) 1959 provides that the Undangs may only request His Royal Highness to step down or relinquish the office of Yang di-Pertuan Besar after a full and complete inquiry has been conducted. That requirement is mandatory. No such inquiry was ever conducted, none was ever brought before the Dewan, and His Royal Highness was never given notice or an opportunity to be heard. The Proclamation of 19 April 2026 was defective from the outset.

3. The Proclamation that lapsed

On 20 April 2026, the Menteri Besar who then held office refused to sign it under Article 10(2) UUTKNS 1959, on the grounds that the requirements of Article 10 UUTKNS 1959 had not been fulfilled and that one of the persons who signed it was not an Undang. With that refusal, the function of the Menteri Besar under Article 10(2) UUTKNS 1959 had been exercised and, with that, the proclamation lapsed and became void.

4. The defect cannot be cured

No inquiry was conducted in purported compliance with Article 10 UUTKNS 1959. The only thing alleged to have occurred was that a new Menteri Besar signed the same proclamation. That act cures nothing. A new Menteri Besar cannot re-exercise a function that has already been exercised. Otherwise, every change of Menteri Besar would revive the same proclamation and the matter would never come to an end.

5. The announcement of the media statement dated 5 September 2026 and the press conference on 8 September 2026 have no effect whatsoever

It relies entirely on the defective and lapsed Proclamation of 19 April 2026 and on the instrument dated 3 August 2026, which adds nothing to the validity of that proclamation.

6. The position of DYMM Tuanku Muhriz Ibni Almarhum Tuanku Munawir as Yang di-Pertuan Besar Negeri Sembilan remains

No valid process has ever caused His Royal Highness Tuanku Muhriz ibni Almarhum Tuanku Munawir to cease holding that office. His Royal Highness remains the Yang di-Pertuan Besar Negeri Sembilan and President of the Dewan. The Dewan does not recognise any vacancy and does not recognise any other person as holding that office. There can be no successor while the office is lawfully held.

7. A person who does not hold an office cannot exercise the powers of that office

Anything done in the name of an office that is not held has no effect in adat (custom). At present, the Undang of Luak Sungei Ujong is YTM Dato’ Klana Petra Muhammad Faris bin Johari; the Undang of Luak Rembau is YTM Dato’ Sedia Raja Haji Hassan bin Ab Hamid; and the Undang of Luak Johol is YTM Dato’ Johan Pahlawan Lela Perkasa Setiawan Dato’ Haji Muhammed bin Abdullah. The offices of Undang of Luak Jelebu and Dato’ Shahbandar Sungei Ujong are vacant.

8. The actions of the six persons who signed the document of 5 September 2026 may be regarded as derhaka (treason/disloyalty)

The actions of the six individuals in signing the document dated 5 September 2026 are regarded as derhaka in the eyes of adat (custom) and the law. This is because four of them did not hold the offices concerned, they signed an instrument for the removal of the Yang di-Pertuan Besar without an inquiry under Article 10(1) UUTKNS 1959, misused the titles of offices and issued invalid directions to government officers.

9. The Dewan decides on the following actions:

a) No Government officer is required to act upon any direction based on that document. The State Government and every State officer shall continue to recognise His Royal Highness as Yang di-Pertuan Besar and deal with His Royal Highness accordingly.

b) The Secretary of the Dewan shall communicate the decision of the Dewan to the Menteri Besar, the State Secretary and the State Legal Adviser, so that the Menteri Besar and the State Government may take the appropriate steps to implement it.

c) The Secretary of the Dewan shall make a police report concerning the actions of those six persons. Four of them did not hold the offices in whose names they signed the document of 5 September 2026. Signing an instrument intended to remove the Yang di-Pertuan Besar when the requirements of Article 10(1) UUTKNS 1959 had not been fulfilled, using titles of offices that were not held, and issuing directions to State Government officers in the name of authority that was not lawfully held, are all regarded as derhaka in the eyes of adat (custom) and the law. The police report is a complaint to enable an investigation by the authorities.

10. Proposal for a Reconciliation Committee under the State Government

The Dewan records its appreciation for the State Government’s concern for the harmony of the State through this proposal. However, questions of Malay adat (custom) in any part of the State have been assigned to the Dewan by Article 16 UUTKNS 1959. That function cannot be delegated, shared or submitted for reconciliation. The Dewan is of the view that there is no justification for the establishment of such a Committee if the Committee’s jurisdiction extends into questions of adat (custom). Accordingly, the Dewan will request an official clarification from the State Government concerning the terms of reference of that Reconciliation Committee.

11.

The Dewan advises all parties against spreading unfounded allegations concerning the institution of the Yang di-Pertuan Besar and the institution of the Undang. The adat (customary) institutions of Negeri Sembilan belong to no party or individual. They are a trust held for all subjects and heirs.

That is all.

Secretary
Dewan Keadilan dan Undang
Negeri Sembilan Darul Khusus
14 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

Related Posts:

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.

Each document is reproduced in full, subject only to redaction of personal identifiers. Where a document contains contested assertions, those assertions belong to the party who filed it. Nothing here is endorsed by this publication.

These pages are intended as a reference archive, not as substitutes for the court record. The original Malay documents remain authoritative where there is any difference in wording or interpretation.

Court documents

• Exhibit DMA-1, 19 April 2026

• Judicial Review Leave Application, filed 17 July 2026

• Supporting Affidavit of Muhammed Abdullah, 17 July 2026

Media statements

• Lampiran A: The 33 Charges Against Mubarak Dohak, 17 April 2026

• Menteri Besar Media Statement, 20 April 2026

• UMNO’s Media Statement, 29 April 2026

• “Undang” Joint Media Statement to suspend DKU Secretary and convene Special Meeting, 29 May 2026

• Royal Household Press Statement on the Vacancy of the Hereditary Title of Tunku Panglima Besar, 9 June 2026

• DKU Statement, 1 August 2026

• “Undang” and Menteri Besar Media Statements, 5-9 September 2026

• DKU Media Statement, 14 September 2026

• Negeri Sembilan EXCO Media Statement, 16 September 2026

• Halim & Ismail Letter to Negeri Sembilan EXCO, 16 September 2026

• DKU Media Statement, 17 September 2026

• AGC Media Statement, 17 September 2026

• State Secretary Media Statement, 17 September 2026

• Palace Media Statement, 20 September 2026

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

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

• DKU Official Statement, 4 October 2026

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

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

• Tunku Nadzaruddin Letter to Menteri Besar, 20 October 2026

Sources and translations

How these documents are obtained

Every court document filed through the Malaysian judiciary’s electronic filing system carries a printed serial number. That number can be entered into the judiciary’s document verification portal, which returns the sealed document held on the court system. Where this publication has retrieved a document that way, the page says so, and any reader can repeat the check.

Some documents reach this publication by other routes, including copies circulating on social media.

Translation notes

Translations are prepared by this publication and carry no legal standing. The Constitution numbers its Articles in Roman numerals; this publication uses Arabic numerals throughout for readability.

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 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.

This is an unofficial English translation. Where there is any discrepancy, the original Malay document prevails.

These documents were obtained on Facebook and the authenticity of the document translated here has not been independently verified by this publication. Where the original uses Jawi script or Arabic invocations, these are described in square brackets rather than reproduced.

Dma 1

315KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

[Crest of Negeri Sembilan]

[Jawi heading: Yang Teramat Mulia Dato’ Undang Yang Empat, Negeri Sembilan Darul Khusus]

SABDA CONCERNING ARTICLE 10 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF NEGERI SEMBILAN 1959 PROCLAMATION OF REMOVAL OF HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS THE YANG DI-PERTUAN BESAR OF NEGERI SEMBILAN TUANKU MUHRIZ IBNI ALMARHUM TUANKU MUNAWIR

[Bismillah and hamdalah in Arabic]

AL-WATHIQU BILLAH [he who places his trust in God], 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; and Yang Teramat Mulia Dato’ Sedia Raja Dato’ Haji Abdul Rahim Bin Haji Yasin, Undang Luak Rembau; and witnessing, Yang Amat Mulia Dato’ Seri Utama Haji Badarudin bin Haji Abdul Khalid, Dato’ Shahbandar Sungei Ujong:

WHEREAS in fulfilment of the requirements of Article 10(1) of the Constitution of Negeri Sembilan 1959, and with the purpose of carrying out that provision, We the Undang Yang Empat on 5 March 2026 held a sitting and a full and complete enquiry concerning the matters constituting acts of misconduct by His Royal Highness Tuanku Muhriz Ibni Almarhum Tuanku Munawir in the discharge of his responsibilities as Yang di-Pertuan Besar of Negeri Sembilan after his accession to the throne.

WHEREAS following that enquiry We the Undang Yang Empat are satisfied that the acts of misconduct concerned were committed deliberately, and have resulted in the sanctity, honour, dignity and good name of the institution of the Ruler in Negeri Sembilan being defiled and brought into contempt.

NOW THEREFORE by the power conferred upon Us under Article 10(1)(b) of the Constitution of Negeri Sembilan 1959, We hereby unanimously determine and pronounce that His Royal Highness Tuanku Muhriz Ibni Almarhum Tuanku Munawir shall abdicate the throne and relinquish his sovereignty, rights, powers and precedence, and that he shall cease to be and to perform the functions of Yang di-Pertuan Besar; and that under Article 10(2) this sabda takes effect immediately, and the Proclamation relating thereto will be issued later, together with the signature of the Menteri Besar.

Thus pronounced by Us.

Executed at Balai Undang Luak Sungei Ujong, Negeri Sembilan Darul Khusus, on 19 April 2026, corresponding to 1 Zulkaedah 1447H.

Dato’ Haji Mubarak Bin Thahak, Dato’ Klana Petra, Undang Luak Sungei Ujong

Dato’ Maarof Bin Haji Mat Rashad, Dato’ Mendika Menteri Akhirulzaman, Undang Luak Jelebu

Dato’ Muhammed Bin Haji Abdullah, Dato’ Johan Pahlawan Lela Perkasa Sitiawan, Undang Luak Johol

Haji Abdul Rahim Bin Haji Yasin, Dato’ Sedia Raja, Undang Luak Rembau

[Four signatures and four official seals appear on the original, dated 19 April 2026]

Kebawah Kaus Yang Teramat Mulia Undang Yang Empat, Negeri Sembilan Darul Khusus. Balai YTM Undang Luak Sungei Ujong, Ampangan, 70400 Seremban, Negeri Sembilan Darul Khusus.

Notes on the translation. Sabda denotes a pronouncement by a person holding customary authority and is left untranslated. Undang Yang Empat is the institutional term for the four Luak chieftainships and is left untranslated. Luak denotes a territorial and customary unit of Negeri Sembilan. Balai Undang denotes the hall of an Undang. The Constitution numbers its Articles in Roman numerals. This publication uses Arabic numerals for readability.

Provenance. The pages from which this translation was made carry no court seal and no eFiling serial number, and cannot be verified through the judiciary’s document verification portal. They are treated as a document purporting to be exhibit DMA-1 in judicial review WA-25-201-07/2026.

Related Posts:

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 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.

These documents were obtained on Facebook and the authenticity of the document translated here has not been independently verified by this publication. Its contents are presented as the sworn evidence of the deponent alone, untested in court, with no affidavit in reply filed at the date of this translation. Personal identification details have been redacted.

Affidavit

1.26MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

English Translation:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT KUALA LUMPUR IN THE FEDERAL TERRITORY JUDICIAL REVIEW NO: [BLANK ON FORM] 2026

In the matter of Order 53 rules 1, 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court 2012; AND in the matter of an application for an Order of Declaration and Mandamus; AND in the matter of the Federal guarantee in respect of State Constitutions under Article 71(2) of the Federal Constitution; AND in the matter of Articles 10(1)(b) and (2) of the Constitution of Negeri Sembilan 1959; AND in the matter of Article 11 of the Constitution of Negeri Sembilan 1959; AND in the matter of Order 92 rule 4 of the Rules of Court 2012; AND in the matter of section 25 and the Schedule to the Courts of Judicature Act 1964; AND in the matter of section 44 of the Specific Relief Act 1950; AND in the matter of the Plaintiffs’ letter to the First Defendant dated 20 April 2026.

BETWEEN

1. YTM Dato’ Klana Petra, Dato’ Haji Mubarak Bin Thahak

2. YTM Dato’ Mendika Menteri Akhirulzaman, Dato’ Maarof Bin Haji Mat Rashad

3. YTM Dato Johan Pahlawan Lela Perkasa Sitiawan, Dato’ Muhammed Bin Haji Abdullah

4. YTM Dato’ Sedia Raja, Dato’ Haji Abdul Rahim Bin Haji Yasin … PLAINTIFFS

AND

1. Menteri Besar Negeri Sembilan

2. Government of Negeri Sembilan … DEFENDANTS

Supporting affidavit

We, Dato’ Johan Pahlawan Lela Perkasa Sitiawan Dato’ Muhammed Bin Haji Abdullah (identity card number omitted), a Malaysian citizen of full age with an address for service at Balai Undang Luak Johol, 73100 Johol, Negeri Sembilan Darul Khusus, do solemnly affirm and state as follows:

1. We are the Third Plaintiff in this Action and affirm this Affidavit by the sabda (pronouncement) and with the unanimous consent of the Plaintiffs.

2. All the facts stated in this Supporting Affidavit are true according to my personal knowledge and/or from documents in my possession to which I have access, and information based on advice, legal advice and my belief, unless otherwise stated.

3. We are the Undang Luak Johol, established under Article 14(1) of the Constitution of Negeri Sembilan 1959, and affirm as follows:

(i) The First Plaintiff is the Undang Luak Sungei Ujong, established under Article 14(1) of the Constitution of Negeri Sembilan 1959.

(ii) The Second Plaintiff is the Undang Luak Jelebu, established under Article 14(1) of the Constitution of Negeri Sembilan 1959.

(iii) The Fourth Plaintiff is the Undang Luak Rembau, established under Article 14(1) of the Constitution of Negeri Sembilan 1959.

4. The Plaintiffs are the Ruler of the State of Negeri Sembilan together with the Yang di-Pertuan Besar of Negeri Sembilan under Articles 28(1) and 28(2) of the Constitution of Negeri Sembilan 1959.

5. The First Defendant is the Menteri Besar of Negeri Sembilan, who bears the public responsibility of carrying out all Constitutional duties under the Constitution of Negeri Sembilan 1959.

6. The Second Defendant is the Government of Negeri Sembilan, which bears the public responsibility of carrying out all Constitutional duties under the Constitution of Negeri Sembilan 1959.

The events of 5 March 2026

7. We solemnly state that on 5 March 2026 a meeting of the Dewan Keadilan dan Undang was held at Istana Besar Seri Menanti, chaired by the Yang di-Pertuan Besar of Negeri Sembilan.

8. We state that we, together with the First Plaintiff, the Second Plaintiff, Tunku Besar Tampin and the Dato’ Shahbandar Sungei Ujong, attended that meeting of the Dewan Keadilan dan Undang.

9. We state that the atmosphere of the DKU meeting that day was somewhat tense when the First Plaintiff raised several acts of administrative and customary misconduct committed by the Yang di-Pertuan Besar of Negeri Sembilan.

10. We state that the DKU meeting was also attended by the Defendants, together with the State Legal Adviser and the Mufti of the Government of Negeri Sembilan.

11. We state that, in order to ease the tension of the DKU meeting, We together with the First Plaintiff and the Second Plaintiff left the meeting and reconvened at Balai Undang Sungei Ujong for a continued meeting.

12. We state that at that continued meeting, We, the First Plaintiff and the Second Plaintiff discussed again in detail all the administrative and customary wrongs committed by Tuanku Muhriz Ibni Almarhum Tuanku Munawir, and decided that His Royal Highness was no longer qualified to continue holding the title of the 11th Yang di-Pertuan Besar of Negeri Sembilan.

13. We state that the Defendants also attended the continued meeting at Balai Undang Sungei Ujong, at which the Second Defendant was represented by the State Secretary of Negeri Sembilan, in addition to the State Legal Adviser of Negeri Sembilan.

14. We state that the First Plaintiff then pronounced (mensabdakan) to the Defendants that they should carry out the Defendants’ Constitutional duties under Article 10(2) of the Constitution of Negeri Sembilan, the Plaintiffs having completed the Plaintiffs’ Constitutional duties under Article 10(1)(b) of the Constitution of Negeri Sembilan 1959.

15. We state that after being so pronounced to by the First Plaintiff, the First Defendant stated that he agreed and would discuss the matter with the Second Defendant and the State Legal Adviser for further action.

16. However, after the Defendants left Balai Undang Sungei Ujong, and even after several days had passed, no action to issue the Proclamation of removal of Tuanku Muhriz Ibni Almarhum Tuanku Munawir under Article 10(2) of the Constitution of Negeri Sembilan 1959 was taken by the Defendants.

The events of 19 April 2026

17. We solemnly state that owing to the failure of the Defendants to carry out their Constitutional duties promptly under Article 10(2) of the Constitution of Negeri Sembilan 1959, on 19 April 2026 the Plaintiffs gathered at Balai Undang Sungei Ujong and issued a Sabda concerning Article 10 of the Constitution of Negeri Sembilan 1959, namely the Proclamation of Removal of His Royal Highness the Yang di-Pertuan Besar of Negeri Sembilan, Tunku Muhriz Ibni Almarhum Tuanku Munawir.

A copy of the said Sabda is exhibited as exhibit DMA-1.

18. We state that among the important contents of Exhibit DMA-1 are the following:

(i) That on 5 March 2026, the Plaintiffs held a sitting and a full and complete enquiry under Article 10(1) of the Constitution of Negeri Sembilan 1959 concerning the misconduct of DYMM Tuanku Muhriz Ibni Almarhum Tuanku Munawir in carrying out his responsibilities as the Yang di-Pertuan Besar of Negeri Sembilan;

(ii) That after holding the full and complete enquiry above, the Plaintiffs were satisfied that the acts of misconduct committed by Tuanku Muhriz Ibni Almarhum Tuanku Munawir were done deliberately, and had resulted in the sanctity, honour, dignity and good name of the institution of the Ruler in Negeri Sembilan being defiled and brought into contempt;

(iii) That by the power held by the Plaintiffs under Article 10(1)(b) of the Constitution of Negeri Sembilan 1959, the Plaintiffs requested that Tuanku Muhriz Ibni Almarhum Tuanku Munawir abdicate the throne of the State and relinquish his sovereignty, rights, powers and precedence as the 11th Yang di-Pertuan Besar of Negeri Sembilan;

(iv) That a Proclamation concerning this removal, under Article 10(2) of the Constitution of Negeri Sembilan 1959, which is to be signed by the Plaintiffs and the Defendant, will be issued later.

19. We state that, by a letter dated 20 April 2026 to the Defendant, the Confidential Secretary to the First Plaintiff delivered the Proclamation document under Article 10(2) of the Constitution of Negeri Sembilan 1959 for signature by the Defendant.

A copy of the proof of service of the letter dated 20 April 2026 on the Defendant is exhibited as exhibit DMA-2.

20. We state that up to the date of filing of this Judicial Review Action, the Defendant has refused, neglected and/or disregarded the Plaintiffs’ Constitutional request that the Defendant sign the proclamation document under Article 10(2) of the Constitution of Negeri Sembilan 1959.

Procedural impropriety, irrationality and legitimate expectation

21. We state that by the failure of the First Defendant to sign the Proclamation document concerned, the Defendants have committed procedural impropriety in carrying out their Responsibilities under Article 10(2) of the Constitution of Negeri Sembilan 1959;

22. We state that by the failure of the First Defendant to sign the Proclamation document concerned, the Defendants have acted irrationally in carrying out their Responsibilities under Article 10(2) of the Constitution of Negeri Sembilan 1959;

23. We state that the Plaintiffs, after carrying out the Plaintiffs’ responsibilities under Article 10(1)(b) of the Constitution of Negeri Sembilan 1959, hold a Legitimate Expectation that the Defendants would carry out their responsibilities under Article 10(2) of the Constitution of Negeri Sembilan 1959.

24. We state that the Plaintiffs have discharged their Constitutional obligation by signing the Proclamation of Removal as at exhibit DMA-1 above.

25. We solemnly believe and say that, other than by an Order of Mandamus from this Honourable Court, the Defendant will not sign the Proclamation document at exhibit DMA-2 concerned.

26. We therefore apply for the following Orders:

(a) A Declaration that the Proclamation Document at annexure DMA-1 is a valid Proclamation document under Articles 10(1)(b) and 10(2) of the Constitution of Negeri Sembilan 1959.

(b) An Order of Mandamus directing the First Defendant to sign the Proclamation document at exhibit DMA-2 under Article 10(2) of the Constitution of Negeri Sembilan 1959 within 7 days of the Order of this Honourable Court.

(c) Costs,

(d) Such other Relief as this honourable court considers fit, just and appropriate.

Affirmed by YTM Dato' Johan Pahlawan Lela Perkasa Sitiawan Dato' Muhammed Bin Haji Abdullah on 17 July 2026 at Seremban. The attestation block records that no interpretation was required, the deponent reading the language of the affidavit. Before me, Commissioner for Oaths No. N 083, Rodiah bt Mohamed, commission period 1.1.2025 to 31.12.2027, of 141A Jalan Dato Bandar Tunggal, 70000 Seremban, Negeri Sembilan Darul Khusus. [Seal of the Undang Luak Johol and seal of the Commissioner for Oaths appear on the original.]

Notes on the translation. The affidavit uses the first person plural “Kami” throughout, which is rendered here as “We”. Sabda denotes a pronouncement by a person holding customary authority and is left untranslated, as is Luak, a territorial and customary unit of Negeri Sembilan, and Balai Undang, the hall of an Undang. The Constitution numbers its Articles in Roman numerals. This publication uses Arabic numerals for readability. Paragraph 3 of the original lists the First, Second and Fourth Plaintiffs at sub-paragraphs (i) to (iii) and does not list a Third Plaintiff separately, the deponent being the Third Plaintiff. Paragraphs 19, 25 and 26(b) refer to exhibit DMA-2, which paragraph 19 describes as proof of service rather than as the Proclamation document itself.

Provenance. The document translated here purports to be the supporting affidavit filed in judicial review WA-25-201-07/2026 at the High Court of Malaya at Kuala Lumpur, affirmed on 17 July 2026. The copy from which this translation was made carries no eFiling serial number, and its authenticity has not been independently verified by this publication. The case number, the parties, the filing date and the orders sought correspond to the application document retrieved through the judiciary’s document verification portal. The exhibits referred to as DMA-1 and DMA-2 are filed separately and are not part of this document.

Related Posts:

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 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.

This document was retrieved through the Malaysian judiciary’s document verification portal on 8 August 2026, using the serial number printed on the filed copy. Personal identification details have been omitted.

Wa 25 201 07 2026 Judicial Review Leave Application (ex Parte) 17 Jul 2026

561KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

English Translation:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT KUALA LUMPUR IN THE FEDERAL TERRITORY JUDICIAL REVIEW NO: [BLANK ON FORM] 2026

In the matter of Order 53 rules 1, 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court 2012;

AND in the matter of an application for an Order of Declaration and Mandamus;

AND in the matter of the Federal guarantee in respect of State Constitutions under Article 71(2) of the Federal Constitution;

AND in the matter of Articles 10(1)(b) and (2) of the Constitution of Negeri Sembilan 1959;

AND in the matter of Article 11 of the Constitution of Negeri Sembilan 1959;

AND in the matter of Order 92 rule 4 of the Rules of Court 2012;

AND in the matter of section 25 and the Schedule to the Courts of Judicature Act 1964;

AND in the matter of section 44 of the Specific Relief Act 1950;

AND in the matter of the Plaintiffs’ letter to the First Defendant dated 20 April 2026.

BETWEEN

1. YTM Dato’ Klana Petra, Dato’ Haji Mubarak Bin Thahak

2. YTM Dato’ Mendika Menteri Akhirulzaman, Dato’ Maarof Bin Haji Mat Rashad

3. YTM Dato Johan Pahlawan Lela Perkasa Sitiawan, Dato’ Muhammed Bin Haji Abdullah

4. YTM Dato’ Sedia Raja, Dato’ Haji Abdul Rahim Bin Haji Yasin … PLAINTIFFS

AND

1. Menteri Besar Negeri Sembilan

2. Government of Negeri Sembilan … DEFENDANTS

Application for judicial review under Order 53 rule 3 of the Rules of Court 2012

(Ex parte)

TAKE NOTICE that this Honourable Court will be moved on 10 August 2026 at 9.30am, or so soon thereafter as counsel may be heard, by the Plaintiffs named above, for the following orders:

1. That leave be granted to the Plaintiffs under Order 53 rule 3 of the Rules of Court 2012 to commence Judicial Review proceedings for:

1.1 An order of Mandamus directing the First Defendant to sign the Proclamation document as at exhibit DMA-1, in accordance with Article 10(2) of the Constitution of Negeri Sembilan 1959, within seven (7) days of the order of this Honourable Court; and

1.2 A declaration that the Proclamation Document as at exhibit DMA-1 is a valid Proclamation document in accordance with Articles 10(1)(b) and 10(2) of the Constitution of Negeri Sembilan 1959.

2. Costs; and

3. Such other Relief as this Honourable Court considers fit, just and appropriate.

The grounds in support of this application are set out in the Statement filed together with this application.

The Affidavit affirmed by Dato’ Johan Pahlawan Lela Perkasa Sitiawan Dato’ Muhammed Bin Haji Abdullah (identity card number omitted), filed together with this application, is to be read in support of this application.

Dated 17 July 2026.

[Seal of the High Court of Kuala Lumpur. Signed by Mohd Hirman b. Ab Rauf, Deputy Registrar, High Court, Kuala Lumpur.]

This application is fixed for hearing before Y.A. Hakim Puan Noriza binti Othman on 10 August 2026 at 9.30am, in Court BK 1, Level 5, Right Wing.

[The filed copy carries a further endorsement directing service on the Attorney General’s Chambers.]

Notes on the translation. Perisytiharan is rendered as “Proclamation”, Sabda as “sabda”, and Undang-Undang Tubuh Kerajaan Negeri Sembilan 1959 as “the Constitution of Negeri Sembilan 1959”. The original numbers Articles of the Constitution in Roman numerals; Arabic numerals are used here for readability. The document uses the terms “Plaintif” and “Defendan”, which are retained here as “Plaintiff” and “Defendant”, although proceedings under Order 53 are more usually described as being between an applicant and a respondent.

A note on the exhibit references. This application seeks both orders in respect of the document exhibited as DMA-1. The supporting affidavit at paragraph 17 exhibits the sabda of 19 April as DMA-1, and at paragraph 19 exhibits proof of service of the letter of 20 April as DMA-2, then at paragraphs 25 and 26(b) seeks mandamus in respect of DMA-2.

Provenance. This document was retrieved from the Malaysian judiciary’s document verification portal on 8 August 2026 using the serial number printed on the filed copy. The retrieved document confirms the case number, the parties, the filing date and the orders sought. The exhibits referred to as DMA-1 and DMA-2 are filed separately and are not part of this document.

Related Posts:

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 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.

Full Translation

OFFICIAL PROCLAMATION
DEWAN KEADILAN DAN UNDANG NEGERI SEMBILAN

The Dewan Keadilan dan Undang (DKU) convened on 16 Safar 1448 Hijrah, corresponding to 31 July 2026, chaired by His Royal Highness the Yang di-Pertuan Besar Tuanku Muhriz ibni Almarhum Tuanku Munawir, and attended by the Undang of Luak Sungei Ujong, the Undang of Luak Rembau, and the Tunku Besar Seri Menanti, satisfying the quorum requirement under Article 20 of the Negeri Sembilan Constitution 1959 (UUTKNS). At this sitting the DKU considered and accepted the following matters:

FIRST: The DKU recorded the Istiadat Menzahirkan Kejadian Undang (the customary installation ceremony) of the Undang of Luak Sungei Ujong, Yang Teramat Mulia Dato’ Klana Petra Muhammad Faris bin Johari (27 June 2026), and accordingly advised that his recognition as Undang of Luak Sungei Ujong, validly appointed according to the Adat of Luak Sungei Ujong, be accepted.

SECOND: The DKU recorded the Istiadat Menzahirkan Kejadian Undang of the Undang of Luak Rembau, Yang Teramat Mulia Dato’ Sedia Raja Haji Hassan bin Ab Hamid (27 June 2026), and accordingly advised that his recognition as Undang of Luak Rembau, validly appointed according to the Adat of Luak Rembau, be accepted.

THIRD: The DKU received and recorded information from the Ibu Soko and Anak-Anak Waris of Ayer Luak Sungei Ujong stating that the holder of the pusaka (hereditary title) Yang Amat Mulia Dato’ Shahbandar, Dato’ Seri Utama Haji Badarudin bin Abdul Khalid, had been removed according to the custom of Luak Sungei Ujong, effective 30 July 2026. Accordingly, under Article 15(1) of the Undang-Undang Tubuh Kerajaan Negeri Sembilan 1959, the office of Dato’ Shahbandar Sungei Ujong is automatically vacant. The DKU noted that the process to complete the appointment of a new Dato’ Shahbandar Sungei Ujong, in accordance with the Adat of Luak Sungei Ujong, has not yet been finalised.

FOURTH: His Royal Highness the Yang di-Pertuan Besar Tuanku Muhriz ibni Almarhum Tuanku Munawir then invoked Fasal 24 of the UUTKNS, inviting representatives of the Ibu Soko Waris Berundang to a Special Sitting of the DKU. The DKU dealt fully and fairly with a complaint from Luak Jelebu, and hereby advised that it accepts the unified position taken by the Waris, Anak Buah and Ibu Soko Waris Berundang of the three Perut — Kemin Teriang, Kemin Beringin and Kemin Bemban — to dismiss Dato’ Haji Maarof bin Mat Rashad as the 16th holder of the pusaka of Undang Luak Jelebu, effective from 31 May 2023, on the customary offences. The office of Undang Luak Jelebu is accordingly automatically vacant, and any actions taken by Dato’ Haji Maarof after 31 May 2023 are to be treated as invalid. The Darjah Tertinggi Negeri Sembilan (DTNS, the state’s highest honour) used by Dato’ Haji Maarof while holding the office of Undang Luak Jelebu is also thereby forfeited.

The State Government is directed to take appropriate steps to give effect to the DKU’s considerations set out above.

FIFTH: Finally, the announcement contained in the document dated 19 April 2026 was brought to the DKU’s attention. The DKU advised and declared that the announcement is unconstitutional and contravenes Article 10 of the Undang-Undang Tubuh Kerajaan Negeri Sembilan 1959, and is therefore invalid and of no effect.

The DKU further advised and determined that the persons purportedly holding the offices of Undang Luak Sungei Ujong, Undang Luak Rembau and Undang Luak Jelebu — namely Haji Mubarak bin Thahak, Haji Abdul Rahim bin Haji Yasin and Haji Maarof bin Haji Mat Rashad respectively — had, at all material times, ceased to hold, or never validly held, their respective offices. The Undang of Luak Sungei Ujong and the Undang of Luak Jelebu were each removed according to their Luak’s custom on the applicable date, and the purported Undang of Luak Rembau was never validly appointed according to the required custom, his appointment never having been completed through the Istiadat Menzahirkan Kejadian Undang. Accordingly, they had no legal authority to exercise any power under Article 10 of the Undang-Undang Tubuh Kerajaan Negeri Sembilan 1959.

Secretary
Dewan Keadilan dan Undang Negeri Sembilan
1 August 2026

What this means

On 1 August 2026, the Dewan Keadilan dan Undang (DKU) issued an official proclamation (Perutusan Rasmi) recording the outcomes of a sitting held on 31 July 2026. The document was chaired by the Yang di-Pertuan Besar Tuanku Muhriz ibni Almarhum Tuanku Munawir and attended by the Undang of Luak Sungei Ujong, the Undang of Luak Rembau, and the Tunku Besar Seri Menanti, meeting the quorum requirement under Article 20 of the Negeri Sembilan Constitution 1959.

• The formal DKU acknowledgement of the two 27 June installations, Undang of Sungei Ujong and Undang Rembau.

• The removal of the Dato’ Shahbandar of Sungei Ujong by Waris Ayer according to the Adat of Luak Sungei Ujong.

• The backdated dismissal of the Undang of Jelebu to 31 May 2023, more than three years before this proclamation, is the most consequential single item, since it retroactively voids every action he is recorded as having taken in that office since that date.His Darjah Tertinggi Negeri Sembilan (DTNS), the state's highest honour, is also revoked.

• The DKU addressed the announcement dated 19 April 2026 and declared it unconstitutional, in breach of Article 10 of the Negeri Sembilan Constitution 1959, and therefore invalid and without effect.

  • The DKU further advised and determined that the individuals purportedly holding the offices of Undang Luak Sungei Ujong, Undang Luak Rembau, and Undang Luak Jelebu, namely Mubarak, Abdul Rahim, and Maarof respectively, had at all material times either ceased to hold, or never validly held, those offices.

  • The Undang of Luak Sungei Ujong and the Undang of Luak Jelebu were each removed according to their Luak's Adat on the applicable dates. The purported Undang of Luak Rembau, the DKU stated, was never validly appointed, his installation never having been completed through the Istiadat Menzahirkan Kejadian Undang. On this basis, the DKU found that none of the three had legal authority to exercise any power under Article 10 of the Negeri Sembilan Constitution 1959.

Do the removed Undang of Jelebu’s objections hold up?

On 31 July, ahead of the sitting, the Dato’ Dato’ Lembaga of Luak Jelebu issued a joint statement objecting to the special DKU meeting (The Star, 1 August 2026).

The statement runs on five main grounds:

The claim that the new Undangs could not sit before DKU confirmation. Article 17 of the Negeri Sembilan Constitution 1959 ties DKU membership to the office, an Undang is made by his Luak, and the Constitution contains no requirement of DKU confirmation before a new Undang takes his seat.

The quorum claim. Article 20 bars business when fewer than one-half of the members are present besides the presiding member, so everything turns on the membership count. On the proclamation's own account, with the Jelebu office vacant since May 2023, the Shahbandar office vacant from 30 July, and the two new Undangs validly installed, the membership (excluding chair) stood at five, and the three members present besides the presiding Tuanku Muhriz cleared the threshold. A further argument circulated from the Jelebu camp presents the sitting as a three-vote division in which the chairman could cast no vote; however, the DKU's function is to advise and acknowledge rather than to decide by vote.

The caretaker government claim. The caretaker convention restrains the elected executive between dissolution and the formation of a new government, and the DKU, a royal and customary body under Articles 16 to 25, sits outside it.

The 5 June injunction claim. The 5 June order, as reported, restrains six named plaintiffs from convening or holding DKU meetings, and on the recorded attendance every person in the room on 31 July, including the presiding Yang di-Pertuan Besar under Article 19, sat outside its reach (The Star, 5 June 2026, Free Malaysia Today, 5 June 2026).

The claim that only the Dato'-Dato' Lembaga can decide Luak Jelebu matters. The DKU’s official statement instead accepts the united position of the Waris, Anak Buah and Ibu Soko Waris Berundang of the three Perut. Which group is entitled to speak authoritatively for the custom of Luak Jelebu is itself a question of custom, and Article 16 provides that the DKU's advice on questions relating to custom is final.

Summary

According to the adat of each Luak, the titles were removed by their Waris. On 1 August 2026, the DKU formally acknowledged those removals in accordance with the Negeri Sembilan Constitution 1959.

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

Related Posts:

Sources:

• Objection by Dato' Lembaga Luak Jelebu, joint statement and press conference video posted by Nordanial Hamzah (Facebook, 31 July 2026)

• Trio who removed Tuanku Muhriz no longer undangs by then, says DKU (FMT, 1 August 2026)

• Negri DKU recognises new Sungai Ujong, Rembau ruling chiefs, declares Jelebu office vacant (The Star, 1 August 2026)

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.

Translation:

PRESS STATEMENT

VACANCY OF THE HEREDITARY TITLE OF TUNKU PANGLIMA BESAR, ONE OF THE FOUR PRINCES, NEGERI SEMBILAN

It is hereby announced that the ceremony described as the “Proclamation Ceremony” of the 12th Yang di-Pertuan Besar of Negeri Sembilan, held at a hotel in Alor Gajah, Melaka on 5 June 2026, is invalid and not recognised under the Constitution, the law, and the customs of Negeri Sembilan.

Accordingly, the title of Yang di-Pertuan Besar that Y.A.M. Tunku Dato’ Seri Nadzaruddin ibni Almarhum Tuanku Ja’afar has attempted to assume is of no effect.

However, by attempting to accept that invalid title, Y.A.M. Tunku Dato’ Seri Nadzaruddin ibni Almarhum Tuanku Ja’afar has thereby relinquished the Hereditary Title of Tunku Panglima Besar of Negeri Sembilan that he previously held.

Consequently, there is no longer any holder of the Hereditary Title of Tunku Panglima Besar.

DATO’ AZIZI BIN MOHAMAD ALI Pengelola Bijaya Diraja (Royal Household Administrator / Master of the Royal Household) 9 June 2026

Read Next: What Is the Tunku Panglima Besar and Why Did Tunku Nadzaruddin Lose It to Tunku Zain?

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

Related Posts:

Sources:

• Istiadat pemasyhuran Yang di-Pertuan Besar ke-12 di Melaka tak sah, tidak diiktiraf (Harian Metro, 9 June 2026)

• Pengelola Bijaya Diraja Istana Negeri Sembilan: ‘Istiadat Pemasyhuran’ Tunku Nadzaruddin tidak sah, kedudukan Tunku Panglima Besar kini kosong, (Twentytwo13, 9 June 2026)

• Tunku Nadzaruddin’s ascension invalid, Tunku Panglima Besar title forfeited (New Straits Times, 9 June 2026)

• Istiadat Pemasyhuran Yang di-Pertuan Besar ke-12 di Melaka tak sah, tidak diiktiraf - Pengelola Bijaya Diraja (Buletin TV3, 9 June 2026)

• Pemasyhuran Tunku Nadzaruddin sebagai Yang di-Pertuan Besar tidak sah (Free Malaysia Today, 9 June 2026)

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.

AL-WATHIQU BILLAH, His Royal Highness Dato’ Klana Petra Dato’ Haji Mubarak Bin Thahak, Undang Luak Sungai Ujong; His Royal Highness Dato’ Mendika Menteri Akhiruzaman Dato’ Maaroof Bin Haji Mat Rashad, Undang Luak Jelebu; His Royal Highness Dato’ Muhammed Bin Haji Abdullah, Undang Luak Johol; His Royal Highness Dato’ Sedia Raja Dato’ Haji Abdul Rahim Bin Haji Yasin, Undang Luak Rembau; His Royal Highness Dato’ Lela Perkasa Sitiawan Dato’ Johan Pahlawan, Tunku Besar Tampin (Yang Teramat Mulia Dato’ Syed Razman Bin Syed Idrus Al-Qadri); and His Highness Dato’ Seri Utama Haji Badaruddin Bin Haji Abdul Khalid, Dato’ Shahbandar Sungai Ujong:

WHEREAS We are deeply angered and disappointed by the failure of Raja Norazli Bin Raja Nordin to comply with the order and decree of Us as the Joint Ruler (Co-Ruler) of the Government of Negeri Sembilan, in his capacity as Majority Member (Ahli Majoriti) of the Council of Justice and Laws of the State (Dewan Keadilan dan Undang Negeri Sembilan – DKU), to convene the call for a Special Council Meeting of the DKU on this day, 29 May 2026.

WHEREAS the conduct of Raja Norazli Bin Raja Nordin is reckless, contrary to customary rules, and highly inappropriate. He is in truth no longer fit to serve as Secretary of the Council of Justice and Laws of Negeri Sembilan. We affirm that the DKU is the absolute customary right of its members as set out in Article 17 of the Constitution of Negeri Sembilan 1959, in accordance with established practice, and is not the property of any individual — let alone Tunku Muhriz ibni Almarhum Tuanku Munawir, whose status and position as Power-Holder (Punca Kuasa) has been stripped by way of a binding and lawful unanimous decision of the rightful customary holders. Any decision taken by the Secretary of the DKU on behalf of the DKU must carry the consent of the majority of members, and not merely on the instruction of one or two individuals, or be influenced by directions from any party not a member (tiada locus standi) of the DKU or of the administration of the Negeri Sembilan Government.

There is no power of individual veto within the DKU. Therefore all correspondence issued in the name of the DKU bearing the signature of Raja Norazli Bin Raja Nordin after the date of 17 April 2026 is without the mandate of the consensus of DKU members, amounts to misuse of the institution and position, is not binding, is defective both in customary and statutory terms, and constitutes an attempt to mislead the Malay community and the Government of the Federation. Article 17 of the Constitution of Negeri Sembilan 1959 states as follows:

Members of the Council

17. This Council shall comprise His Royal Highness, the Undang Yang Empat, and the Tunku Besar Tampin, Tengku Besar Seri Menanti, Dato’ Shahbandar Sungai Ujong, and whoever else is a Malay dignitary appointed from time to time for any period determined by His Royal Highness in the Undang Yang Empat.

WHEREAS We also express our profound disappointment at the failure of the Honourable Menteri Besar of Negeri Sembilan, the Honourable State Secretary of Negeri Sembilan, and the Honourable State Legal Adviser of Negeri Sembilan to act in a neutral manner during this crisis, which has now been prolonged and worsened. What is our standing in the view of the Honourable Menteri Besar, the Honourable State Secretary and the Honourable State Legal Adviser? We assert that the powers conferred by the Federal Constitution and the State Constitution upon the Yang Di-Pertuan Besar are likewise conferred jointly upon Us as the Government. There can be no division. It is time the Honourable Menteri Besar, the Honourable State Secretary and the Honourable State Legal Adviser truly understood the express provisions of the Constitution of Negeri Sembilan 1959 concerning Our powers and position. Accordingly, We find it necessary, for the administration of the Government of Negeri Sembilan, to take a stand of principle and not act “lebih sudu dari kuah” (“more spoon than gravy”) nor “ibarat kerbau dicucuk hidung” (“like a buffalo led by the nose”), and to take steps that are reasonable and necessary to give voice to the call for Us to exercise Our customary powers and duties as set out in resolving this turmoil and confusion. Nor should they act in the manner of “lempar batu sembunyi tangan” (“throwing a stone and hiding the hand”).

WHEREAS in light of these increasingly pressing latest circumstances concerning the issues arising from the turmoil in customary administration and governance of Negeri Sembilan, consistent with customary practice and Article 16(1) and (3) of the Constitution of Negeri Sembilan 1959 — which confer absolute power upon the DKU to deliberate any matter relating to customary affairs and duties in Negeri Sembilan — We, as members of the DKU and the majority thereof in accordance with practice and as provided under Article 17 of the Constitution of Negeri Sembilan 1959, hereby unanimously summon and set a new date for the Special Meeting of the DKU on Friday, 5 June 2026, at 9:00 a.m. at Balai Rasmi YTM Tunku Besar Tampin, Negeri Sembilan, to deliberate the said matter. The convening of this Special Meeting of the DKU is imperative for the sake of customary administration in particular, and the wellbeing of Negeri Sembilan in general. “Biar mati anak jangan mati adat” (”Let the child die, but never let custom die”).

WHEREAS on the strength of the power conferred upon Us as the majority of DKU members, and with reference to Article 24 of the Constitution of Negeri Sembilan 1959, We have unanimously resolved to invite the Chief Secretary to the Government (Ketua Setiausaha Negara), the Attorney General (Peguam Negara), and the Inspector-General of Police (Ketua Polis Negara) as invitees and independent observers. This invitation is appropriate and reasonable in light of the unprofessional conduct and continuing dereliction of duty by the Secretary of the DKU and the administration of the State Government of Negeri Sembilan in carrying out their duties, and further to the failure to give effect to the decree of Us alongside YTM Undang Yang Empat as members of the DKU and concurrently the Joint Ruler (Co-Ruler) of the State Government of Negeri Sembilan, in exercising the powers and duties conferred upon Us. Article 24 of the Constitution of Negeri Sembilan 1959 provides as follows:

Attendance of persons other than members

24. The Council may permit any person to be present at its sittings if it is deemed reasonable for that person to be present.

WHEREAS, in light of the continuing neglect and failure of Raja Norazli Bin Raja Nordin to carry out his duties and responsibilities, We hereby unanimously invoke the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of Negeri Sembilan 1959 to suspend the duties of Raja Norazli Bin Raja Nordin and thereafter appoint a Special Committee to exercise the powers of the Secretary of the DKU, to manage matters including, but not limited to, the convening of meetings and the carrying out of the duties of the Secretary of the DKU at the said Special Meeting of the DKU on 5 June 2026. Article 21 of the Constitution of Negeri Sembilan 1959 provides as follows:

Regulations and appointment of committees

21. Subject to the conditions of this Constitution, the Council may make its own regulations and appoint committees to carry out its duties.

We humbly pray that this process proceeds smoothly and orderly under the grace and mercy of Allah SWT. Unto Allah SWT alone do We submit.

Thus decreed.

Issued on this 29th day of May 2026, corresponding to 12 Zulhijjah 1447H.

Read Next: The DKU Secretary Has Not Been Suspended. So Why Is the Press Reporting That He Has?

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

Related Posts:

Source:

• Joint Media Statement of the Undangs, Tunku Besar Tampin and Dato’ Shahbandar (Facebook, Nordanial Hamzah), 29 May 2026

Joint Media Statement 29 May 2026

911KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

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.