Could the Undang's Declaration Constitute Sedition?
Could the Undangs’ Declaration Constitute Sedition?
What Does Malaysian Law Say About Sedition?
Section 3(1) of the Sedition Act 1948 defines seditious tendency to include anything that:
Brings into hatred or contempt, or excites disaffection against any Ruler
Questions the constitutional position of any Ruler
Promotes feelings of ill will or hostility between different classes of the population
The declaration, broadcast publicly via Facebook Live, purported to declare the Yang di-Pertuan Besar removed and to install a different person in his place. It did so without any of the constitutional requirements being met, without any specific misconduct being named, and — in the case of Mubarak — by a person who had already been stripped of his constitutional authority.
The April 19 declaration was signed and read by all four present:
Mubarak Dohak (previously Undang Sungai Ujong) — who read the declaration
Maarof Mat Rashad (Undang Jelebu)
Muhammad Abdullah (Undang Johol)
Abdul Rahim Yasin (Undang Rembau )*
Could This Cross the Line into Sedition?
On its face, the April 19 declaration ticks more than one of the boxes set out in Section 3(1) of the Sedition Act 1948. A public proclamation — broadcast live on Facebook — purporting to remove a sitting Yang di-Pertuan Besar and install another in his place plainly questions the constitutional position of the Ruler, which is one of the listed seditious tendencies. Depending on how it was received and amplified, it could also be argued to excite disaffection against the Ruler or to promote ill will between groups within the state.
The legal weakness in the Undang’s position is procedural, and it is significant. A constitutional power exercised outside its constitutional procedure is not the same thing as exercising that power at all. The Negeri Sembilan Constitution sets out, in Articles 10 to 12, the framework within which the Undang Yang Empat may act in matters touching the throne. The April 19 declaration named no specific misconduct, invoked none of the required mechanisms, and — in Mubarak Dohak’s case — was made by a person whom the state government, the Dewan Keadilan dan Undang, and the Telaga Undang have all said no longer holds the office he claimed to be acting from. Menteri Besar Aminuddin Harun has been categorical: the act is “inconsistent with Articles 10 to 12” and is “not recognised” by the state government.
That matters legally because the Undang’s natural defence — that they were exercising a legitimate constitutional power — depends on the act actually being a legitimate exercise of that power. As one reading of the law puts it: invoking a constitutional authority without following its required procedure does not transform an unauthorised act into an authorised one. If the procedural shell is empty, what remains is a public statement attacking the position of the Ruler. And that is precisely what Section 3(1) reaches.
Beyond the Sedition Act, Chapter VII of the Penal Code also looms in the background. As lawyer Malik Imtiaz Sarwar has noted in FMT, that chapter criminalises wrongful deprivation or deposition of a Ruler, his heirs, or successors — a provision that, at the time of writing, has not been invoked in connection with the April 19 declaration.
Has Anyone Been Charged?
At the time of writing, no sedition charges have been filed.
Malaysian police have so far limited their public statements to warning the public against sharing content that could cause anxiety or touch on royal sensitivities. Whether the Attorney-General’s Chambers ultimately considers the conduct prosecution-worthy — under the Sedition Act, the Penal Code, or both — is a decision that has not yet been made, and that this column does not presume to make for them.
What can fairly be said is this: the gap between the constitutional procedure that would have legitimised the Undang’s act, and the press conference that actually took place, is the same gap into which the question of sedition falls. Whether the authorities choose to step into it is now a matter of prosecutorial discretion and political will.
*"Some reports name the Undang of Rembau as Muhammad Shariff Omar; the discrepancy is unresolved at the time of writing."
Sources for Article 9:
On the police warning: https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/bahasa/tempatan/2026/04/20/polis-beri-amaran-jangan-sentuh-3r-dalam-isu-pemerintahan-n-sembilan
Malik Imtiaz on Chapter VII of the Penal Code: https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/opinion/2026/04/23/why-negeri-sembilan-is-not-in-a-constitutional-crisis
Sedition Act 1948: https://www.agc.gov.my
On no charges being filed: https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2026/04/23/four-undangs-skip-negeri-sembilan-assembly-opening-as-royal-row-lingers/217334