This is an unofficial translation prepared by this publication and carries no legal standing. The original Malay statement runs to 17 pages. To keep this page readable, the English translation appears first and the original Malay pages are reproduced in full at the bottom. Where there is any difference in wording or interpretation, the Malay original is authoritative.
OFFICIAL STATEMENT
SECRETARY OF THE DEWAN KEADILAN DAN UNDANG
NEGERI SEMBILAN
INTRODUCTION
The Dewan Keadilan dan Undang Negeri Sembilan (“the Dewan”) has been informed of a document dated 2 October 2026 made by individuals who, with one exception, no longer hold lawful office as Undang in Negeri Sembilan (“the Document”), and of two letters, purportedly “warkah” (royal letters), dated 30 September 2026 and addressed respectively to the Chief Secretary to the Government and to the Attorney General (“the Letters”). The claims in the Document and the Letters are misleading and contrary to the advice and decisions of the Dewan on matters of adat in Negeri Sembilan and to the Constitution of the State of Negeri Sembilan 1959 (“UUTKNS 1959”).
This statement is issued on the direction of the Dewan. It sets out the Dewan’s record on those claims so that the Federal and State authorities, State officers and the people of Negeri Sembilan know the true position.
The Document does not alter the constitutional or administrative position currently in force. The length of a statement, the repetition of a claim or the use of adat language cannot substitute for compliance with the mandatory requirements of Article 10 of UUTKNS 1959.
POWERS OF THE DEWAN IN MATTERS OF ADAT
Under UUTKNS 1959, the authority on questions of Malay adat in Negeri Sembilan, including those relating to the four Undang and the Tunku Besar Tampin, is the Dewan. UUTKNS 1959 establishes the Dewan Keadilan dan Undang (The Council of the Yang di-Pertuan Besar and the Ruling Chiefs) and entrusts to it questions of Malay adat in any part of the State, including questions relating to the election or succession to, or removal from or vacation of office of, any of the four Undang and the Tunku Besar Tampin referred to in Article 14 (Article 16(1)). No other body or person is given that function.
Under Article 16(3), the Dewan’s advice on those questions is final and may not be challenged or called into question in any court on any ground whatsoever. This position has been affirmed by the Federal Court in several cases. No proclamation, statement or document issued by any person can override the Dewan’s advice on who lawfully holds the office of Undang.
DYMM TUANKU MUHRIZ IBNI ALMARHUM TUANKU MUNAWIR REMAINS YANG DI-PERTUAN BESAR
Duli Yang Maha Mulia Tuanku Muhriz ibni Almarhum Tuanku Munawir is, and remains, the Yang di-Pertuan Besar of Negeri Sembilan. DYMM Tuanku Muhriz was elected by the Undang and proclaimed the 11th Yang di-Pertuan Besar on 29 December 2008, and was formally installed in accordance with UUTKNS 1959 on 26 October 2009. DYMM Tuanku Muhriz continues to hold that office, together with the office of Yang di-Pertua of the Dewan under Article 19.
UUTKNS 1959 provides the only lawful means by which that office may become vacant. If it is said that the Undang have called upon His Highness to withdraw or abdicate, Article 10 requires:
(a) a full and complete enquiry by the Undang;
(b) a determination that a ground stated in Article 10 exists;
(c) the exercise of that power by persons lawfully holding the office of Undang, in the number required by Article 29; and
(d) a proclamation under Article 10(2).
For the reasons set out in this statement, none of those requirements has been met.
DYMM Tuanku Muhriz has continued to perform the functions of the office of Yang di-Pertuan Besar since 19 April 2026, and the Dewan has continued to sit with DYMM Tuanku Muhriz as Yang di-Pertua.
Accordingly, there is no vacancy in the office of Yang di-Pertuan Besar. Article 11 applies only when that office is vacant, and cannot be used to elect a successor while the office is lawfully held. DYMM Tuanku Muhriz’s tenure can be ended only in the manner provided by UUTKNS 1959. The Dewan does not recognise any other person as holding that office.
THERE IS ONLY ONE RULER OF THIS STATE
The Document treats its signatories, together with the Yang di-Pertuan Besar, as forming a “Raja majmuk” (composite Ruler) of Negeri Sembilan (the Document, paragraphs 15, 18 and 22). UUTKNS 1959 does not support that statement.
Under Article 7(1), there shall be a Yang di-Pertuan Besar for the State “to exercise the functions and powers of a Ruler in accordance with this Constitution and who shall take precedence over all other persons in the State”. The expression “His Highness” (Duli Yang Maha Mulia) means the person elected as Yang di-Pertuan Besar by the Undang to exercise the functions of Ruler under UUTKNS 1959 or any law, and as a member of the Conference of Rulers (Article 34). The order of precedence among the four Undang, the Tunku Besar Tampin and other dignitaries is determined by the Dewan, but “subject to the precedence of His Highness” (Article 30).
Article 28 does not make the four Undang and the Tunku Besar Tampin co-rulers with His Highness, and does not set aside His Highness’s precedence over all other persons in the State.
Article 160(2) of the Federal Constitution further reinforces this position, as it defines “Ruler”, in relation to Negeri Sembilan, as the Yang di-Pertuan Besar acting on his own behalf and on behalf of the four Undang and the Tunku Besar Tampin in accordance with UUTKNS 1959. It is therefore the Yang di-Pertuan Besar who acts as Ruler.
SITTING OF THE DEWAN ON 17 APRIL 2026
Contrary to the claims in the Document (paragraphs 13 and 14), DYMM Tuanku Muhriz did not interfere in the affairs of Luak Sungei Ujong at the sitting of 17 April 2026. The Dewan’s record shows the following.
(a) The matter brought before the Dewan was a complaint by representatives of the Telaga Undang of Luak Sungei Ujong, namely the Ibu Soko and Waris Klana Hulu. They had already removed Haji Mubarak bin Thahak @ Dohak from the office of Undang in accordance with the adat of that Luak, by a letter of removal submitted on 13 May 2025.
(b) DYMM Tuanku Muhriz clearly affirmed that the adat power to elect, appoint and remove the Undang rests with the Luak itself under Article 14(1) and (3), and that no member of the Dewan, “including DYMM Tuanku himself”, has power to endorse or reject such a decision of the Luak.
(c) The Dewan therefore accepted the removal as one made by the Luak in accordance with its own adat, under Article 14(3). Members’ views were sought before that conclusion was reached, and the minutes record no further objection from members when DYMM Tuanku Muhriz, as Yang di-Pertua of the Dewan, announced the Dewan’s decision to accept the removal. The Dewan did not remove any Undang, and neither did DYMM Tuanku Muhriz. The Dewan accepted the decision made by the Luak to remove the Undang of Luak Sungei Ujong.The sitting of 17 April 2026 was therefore not an interference in the affairs of the Luak; rather the opposite. It was the Dewan performing its function under Article 16, namely receiving and advising on a decision already made by the Luak in accordance with adat.
PERSONS WHO SIGNED THE DOCUMENTS DATED 19 APRIL AND 5 SEPTEMBER 2026
On questions of adat under Article 16(1), the Dewan has advised as follows. That advice is final under Article 16(3) and remains in force:
(a) Haji Mubarak bin Thahak @ Dohak was removed from the office of Undang of Luak Sungei Ujong by his Luak, in accordance with the adat of that Luak, with effect from 13 May 2025 (advice dated 17 April 2026);
(b) Haji Maarof bin Mat Rashad was removed from the office of Undang of Luak Jelebu by his Luak, in accordance with the adat of that Luak, with effect from 31 May 2023 (advice dated 31 July 2026);
(c) Haji Abdul Rahim bin Yasin was never lawfully appointed Undang of Luak Rembau in accordance with the required adat, because his appointment was never completed through the Istiadat Menzahirkan Kejadian Undang (the ceremony formally manifesting the making of an Undang) (advice dated 31 July 2026); and
(d) Haji Badarudin bin Abdul Khalid ceased to hold the office of Dato’ Shahbandar Sungei Ujong through a Luruh Pusaka (the shedding of a hereditary title by the clan) declared by the anak waris (clan heirs) and Ibu Soko Waris di Ayer on 30 July 2026 (acknowledged on 31 July 2026).The offices of Undang are therefore currently held as follows. Undang of Luak Sungei Ujong: YTM Dato’ Klana Petra Muhammad Faris bin Johari. Undang of Luak Rembau: YTM Dato’ Sedia Raja Haji Hassan bin Ab Hamid. Undang of Luak Johol: YTM Dato’ Johan Pahlawan Lela Perkasa Setiawan Dato’ Haji Muhammed bin Abdullah. The offices of Undang of Luak Jelebu and of Dato’ Shahbandar Sungei Ujong are currently vacant.
The Document (paragraph 27) claims that DYMM Tuanku Muhriz “appointed” replacement Undang for Rembau and Sungei Ujong. That claim is untrue. DYMM Tuanku Muhriz did not appoint any Undang and has never acted as though he were doing so. Each Undang was chosen by his Luak in accordance with that Luak’s adat under Article 16(1), and the Dewan took note of those appointments on 31 July 2026. The Document (paragraph 12) also treats the Dewan’s decision of 4 July 2025 concerning the Undang of Luak Rembau as final. It was not. On that date, the Dewan agreed to take note of Luak Rembau’s declaration of the appointment of Haji Abdul Rahim bin Yasin, and made the effective date of that appointment expressly subject to a further adat step, namely a Majlis Mengadap (formal audience) before DYMM Tuanku Muhriz, to be carried out in accordance with the adat of Luak Rembau. The Secretary of the Dewan’s notification to Haji Abdul Rahim stated clearly that he could perform the functions of Undang only within Luak Rembau and not beyond it at State level, because his appointment as Undang would be complete only after the Majlis Mengadap and the Istiadat Menzahirkan Kejadian as required by the adat of Luak Rembau. On 31 July 2026, the Dewan found that his appointment had never been completed through the Istiadat Menzahirkan Kejadian Undang.
ARTICLE 10: “FULL AND COMPLETE ENQUIRY”
Article 10(1) permits the Undang to call upon His Highness to withdraw or abdicate only “if it is considered and determined after full and complete enquiry by the Undangs” that one of the grounds stated in that Article exists. This is a condition precedent to the exercise of that power, not a formality.
The Document (paragraphs 8 and 9) states that the English word “enquiry”, as distinct from “inquiry”, means no more than the act of asking, in a closed process conducted by the Undang themselves. That statement is wrong. The English text of Article 10(1) is reinforced by the Jawi text of UUTKNS 1959. The Jawi text uses the expression “penyiasatan yang secukupnya dan sepenuhnya” (sufficient and full investigation). It does not say merely “pertanyaan” (questioning). It says “penyiasatan” (investigation). It says nothing about a process that need only be internal or closed. It requires an investigation that is both sufficient and full.
The expression contains three separate but cumulative requirements:
(a) there must be an investigation;
(b) the investigation must be sufficient in scope and in the material considered; and
(c) the investigation must be carried through to full completion before any consideration and determination is made.The Dewan’s position is that no investigation under Article 10 has ever been conducted. The question of whether such an investigation may be conducted in closed session or in secret therefore does not arise. In any event, on the Document’s own account, what it describes does not meet the requirements of Article 10, as the following paragraphs show.
The Document itself states that the investigation took place on 5 March 2026 at a sitting of the Dewan (the Document, paragraphs 10 and 12). The Dewan is the body named by UUTKNS 1959 as the Dewan Keadilan dan Undang (The Council of the Yang di-Pertuan Besar and the Ruling Chiefs), and it may consider any matter referred to it by His Highness or by any of the four Undang and the Tunku Besar Tampin (Article 16(1)). Minutes must be kept of all its proceedings (Article 22(1)). Because the Document places the alleged investigation within the Dewan, it is the Dewan’s own record that must be examined.
Regarding what took place on 5 March 2026, the Dewan’s record shows that:
(a) no investigation of any matter touching the office of Yang di-Pertuan Besar was recorded at the sitting of 5 March 2026;
(b) DYMM Tuanku Muhriz was at no time given notice of any such investigation, or any opportunity to be heard in respect of it;
(c) no record, minutes, notes, report or findings of any investigation under Article 10 are held by the Secretary of the Dewan, and none has ever been submitted to the Dewan by anyone; and
(d) the entire sitting, including the other business before it, lasted one hour, from 10.00 am to 11.00 am.On its own account, the Document states only that three questions were put to DYMM Tuanku Muhriz on 5 March 2026 and that a period of 45 days then elapsed. The Document produces no contemporaneous record of any of the following:
(a) written notice setting out the specific grounds relied on under Article 10 and the consequences that might follow;
(b) particulars of the allegations, and all material to be relied on;
(c) a full record of the questions put and DYMM Tuanku Muhriz’s answers;
(d) a meaningful opportunity to respond, produce documents and correct facts;
(e) any examination of other parties, witnesses or records;
(f) a record of the Undang’s deliberations and findings on each element of Article 10; or
(g) written reasons linking the evidence to the determination made.The passage of time is not an investigation. A statement in a later instrument that an investigation was conducted is an assertion by the same persons. It is not independent proof that the requirements of Article 10 were met.
The account now given of what allegedly took place on 5 March 2026 has also been put forward late. On 17 July 2026, the Undang of Luak Johol, YTM Dato’ Haji Muhammed bin Abdullah, affirmed an affidavit in High Court proceedings commenced by himself and the other signatories of the Document (Originating Summons No. WA-25-201-07/2026). That affidavit says nothing about any investigation during the Dewan sitting of 5 March 2026. Instead, he claimed that a detailed discussion had purportedly been held at the Balai Undang Sungei Ujong concerning all the administrative and adat wrongs committed by DYMM Tuanku Muhriz ibni Almarhum Tuanku Munawir. Evidence not put forward at the time, and now put forward almost seven months after the event without any contemporaneous record, cannot be accepted. The Dewan rejects it.
The Document’s reliance on Governor Weld’s memorandum of 23 December 1885 does not assist it either. That memorandum refers to “patient enquiry and separate consultation with all parties”, that is, a patient enquiry and separate consultation with all parties. Even if the memorandum were treated as historical guidance, it points to patient examination and separate consultation with each party. It does not point to three questions without a complete record.
ARTICLE 29 DOES NOT CURE THE DEFECT
Article 29 sets the number of Undang required to exercise a power conferred on the Undang. It does not determine who lawfully holds the office of Undang. It does not validate the position of a person who has been removed from office in accordance with the adat of his Luak. Nor does it set aside the investigation requirement under Article 10.
The Document (paragraph 25) states that Article 29 is satisfied even though some signatures are disputed. That is not correct. Article 29 requires the power to be exercised by at least three Undang, or by as many of them as are living. On the Dewan’s advice (paragraph 16), only one of the persons who signed the document dated 19 April 2026 as Undang holds that office. The other three are not Undang. Further, the involvement of individuals not holding the office of Undang in the decision and in the execution of the declaration invalidated both processes and the declaration resulting from them. The Dewan has already decided that the document dated 19 April 2026 does not comply with Article 10 and has no effect.
Neither the Tunku Besar Tampin nor the Dato’ Shahbandar Sungei Ujong is an Undang, and neither has any role in the exercise of the power under Article 10.
THE 1898 AGREEMENT, ARTICLE 32 AND ARTICLE 28
The Agreement of 29 April 1898 between the Yang di-Pertuan Besar and the four Undang, together with ancient adat, forms an important part of the constitutional history of Negeri Sembilan, and the Dewan upholds it with the highest respect.
Nevertheless, that Agreement no longer serves as the sole source of constitutional rights or powers. It must be read subject to the express provisions of UUTKNS 1959 and may be given effect only to the extent that it is consistent with UUTKNS 1959 (Article 32). Article 16(1) expressly provides that the Dewan shall advise on questions of Malay adat referred to it, including “questions relating to the election or succession to or removal from or vacation of office of any of the Ruling Chiefs”. The Dewan is responsible for deciding or advising on adat matters referred to it. Failure or delay in doing so constitutes a neglect of the duty entrusted to it.
No historical document may be quoted selectively to override the written requirements of Article 10.
Article 28, by its own wording, defines the expression “Ruler” as used in Part II of UUTKNS 1959. It cannot be stretched into a general veto by the four Undang and the Tunku Besar Tampin over every function of the Yang di-Pertuan Besar. Nor can it be used to cure an act that is defective under Article 10, in Part I. In any event, any requirement for the consent of the Undang can be satisfied only by persons lawfully holding that office.
THE SIGNING OF THE PROCLAMATION BY DATO’ HAJI ISMAIL BIN LASIM ON 3 AUGUST 2026 HAS NO EFFECT
On 20 April 2026, the then Menteri Besar, Dato’ Seri Utama Haji Aminuddin bin Harun, declined to sign the proclamation under the proviso to Article 10(2). The proviso requires that a proclamation be issued “as soon as possible thereafter” under the signatures of the Undang and the Menteri Besar. In law, a proviso is a “condition precedent”. In this context, the declaration can take effect only if that condition precedent is satisfied, namely that the proclamation is issued as soon as possible under the signatures of the Undang and the Menteri Besar.
The Menteri Besar then in office was the only Menteri Besar who could take part in such a proclamation, and he declined to do so. He gave his reasons. That decision was made, the condition precedent was not satisfied, and the matter was closed. Dato’ Seri Utama Haji Aminuddin’s tenure as Menteri Besar subsequently ended after the Negeri Sembilan state election on 1 August 2026.
Dato’ Haji Ismail bin Lasim was not Menteri Besar on 19 April 2026 and was not present when the document of that date was signed. He cannot validate anything done that day. The signature he affixed on 3 August 2026, some three and a half months later and after the previous Menteri Besar’s refusal, was not a proclamation issued as soon as possible thereafter. It cannot erase that refusal. It cannot revive a proclamation that had lapsed. Nor does it remove the need to prove that the investigation, grounds, qualifications and mandatory sequence required by Article 10 existed on 19 April 2026.
Further, and in any event, the proviso to Article 10(2) requires the proclamation to be issued as soon as possible thereafter. No proclamation was issued when the instrument was presented to the Menteri Besar in April 2026, because he declined to sign it, and on reasonable grounds. The effect of that refusal was that the instrument could no longer be perfected by proclamation. It lapsed and ceased to have any effect well before 3 August 2026. A step that has lapsed cannot be revived months later by a different signatory.
The Attorney General’s Chambers has stated that the proclamation dated 19 April 2026 is invalid because the mandatory requirements of Article 10 were not complied with, and that it will not be gazetted. The Chambers has also stated that neither the Menteri Besar nor the State Executive Council has power to end or vacate the office of Yang di-Pertuan Besar unilaterally. On 9 September 2026, Dato’ Haji Ismail bin Lasim, as Menteri Besar, himself stated that the State Government’s position is that the proclamation instrument did not follow the process and procedure required by Article 10, and that it is invalid, unconstitutional and unenforceable. The State Secretary, the officer responsible for the State Government Gazette, declined to gazette the proclamation on the advice of the Attorney General’s Chambers, and no gazette concerning it has ever been issued. The requirements of Article 10 are constitutional requirements and do not depend on political interests or on who holds power. They cannot be satisfied by a change of political position after the event.
The Document also contradicts itself. It claims that DYMM Tuanku Muhriz ceased to reign on 19 April 2026 and that a successor was elected the same day. Yet it also states that the process was completed only on 3 August 2026 through the Menteri Besar’s signature. Both cannot be true. Article 11 cannot be used to elect a successor to an office that is not vacant.
There is a further contradiction. After 19 April 2026, DYMM Tuanku Muhriz dissolved the State Legislative Assembly on 5 June 2026, and the State general election followed on 1 August 2026. On 2 August 2026, the day after the election, Dato’ Haji Ismail bin Lasim took the oath of office as Menteri Besar of Negeri Sembilan before DYMM Tuanku Muhriz. On 7 August 2026, ten members of the State Executive Council took the oath of office and the oath of allegiance before DYMM Tuanku Muhriz. Both sets of oaths were taken at Istana Besar Seri Menanti before the Menteri Besar and the Executive Council members assumed their duties. On 20 August 2026, seventeen days after he purported to sign the defective proclamation, Dato’ Haji Ismail bin Lasim attended, as Menteri Besar, a sitting of the Dewan chaired by DYMM Tuanku Muhriz and briefed the Dewan on the State’s development.
The Document cannot hold both positions at once. If DYMM Tuanku Muhriz had ceased to be Yang di-Pertuan Besar on 19 April 2026, every act he performed as Ruler after that date would be void and invalid, including the dissolution of the State Legislative Assembly on 5 June 2026 and the oaths of office taken before him by the Menteri Besar and members of the State Executive Council. On that basis, Dato’ Haji Ismail bin Lasim could not have lawfully held the office of Menteri Besar on 3 August 2026, and his signature on that date could not have perfected any proclamation.
HIGH COURT INJUNCTION DATED 5 JUNE 2026
The signatories of the Document are the plaintiffs in proceedings they themselves commenced in the Seremban High Court (Originating Summons No. NA-24NCvC-240-05/2026), in which the Secretary of the Dewan and the Dewan are the first and second defendants respectively. On 5 June 2026, on the application of the Secretary of the Dewan (Enclosure 31), the High Court granted an ad interim injunction against all six plaintiffs. By paragraph (1) of that order, pending disposal of Enclosures 10 and 12 and until further order of the Court, the plaintiffs, whether by themselves, their servants, agents, representatives, nominees, appointees, employees, or any committee, body or person purportedly established, appointed or authorised by them, or otherwise howsoever, are restrained from:
(a) holding, convening, conducting, running, continuing, attending or participating in any meeting, or any meeting styling itself as a meeting of the Dewan Keadilan dan Undang Negeri Sembilan (“DKU”), including (without limitation) the Special Meeting announced for 5 June 2026 in the Plaintiffs’ Joint Media Statement dated 29 May 2026;
(b) purporting to suspend, remove, replace, interfere with and/or obstruct the First Defendant in performing his functions, duties and responsibilities as Secretary of the DKU under the Constitution of the State of Negeri Sembilan 1959;
(c) purporting to establish, appoint, authorise or mandate any further committee, person or body, or acting through any committee, person or body purportedly established, to perform, exercise or take over the powers, functions, duties and responsibilities of the Secretary of the DKU;
(d) holding themselves out, whether by correspondence, media statements or otherwise, as acting for or on behalf of the DKU;
(e) taking any step, making any decision and/or implementing any decision concerning the administration, governance, proceedings, powers and affairs of the DKU; and
(f) otherwise taking any step that alters, prejudices and/or interferes with the status quo of the administration, governance, proceedings and affairs of the DKU as it stood immediately before 21 May 2026, the date on which the Plaintiffs issued a document entitled “Sabda Memerintahkan Setiausaha Memanggil Sidang Khas Dewan Keadilan dan Undang Negeri Sembilan” (Decree Directing the Secretary to Convene a Special Sitting of the Dewan Keadilan dan Undang Negeri Sembilan).There is only one Dewan Keadilan dan Undang in this State. The Dewan is established by UUTKNS 1959 itself (Article 16(1)), and its membership is fixed by Article 17. His Highness presides over its meetings (Article 19), minutes must be kept of all its proceedings (Article 22), and its Secretary is appointed by His Highness and serves at His Highness’s pleasure (Article 25). No member or group of members may form a separate Dewan, or exercise the Dewan’s functions outside its sittings.
No sitting of the Dewan was convened by or with the consent of DYMM Tuanku Muhriz, or through the Secretary of the Dewan, on 5 September 2026. The so-called “Special Sitting” held on that date was not a sitting of the Dewan. In the Letters dated 30 September 2026, the same persons describe it as a “Special Sitting of the YTM Ruling Chiefs of Negeri Sembilan” (Sidang Khas YTM Pembesar Memerintah Negeri Sembilan). UUTKNS 1959 establishes no such body. Nothing done or announced there constitutes advice or a decision of the Dewan, and those who took part have no authority to act in the Dewan’s name.
The so-called “Special Sitting” of 5 September 2026 was held, and the Document was issued, while the injunction was in force. Paragraph (1)(a) of the order restrains the signatories from holding, convening, conducting, running, continuing, attending or participating in any meeting, or styling any meeting as a meeting of the Dewan, and paragraph (1)(f) restrains them from altering the status quo of the Dewan’s affairs as it stood before 21 May 2026. A gathering of some members of the Dewan purporting to decide matters entrusted to the Dewan by UUTKNS 1959 does not change its character merely by being given another name. In addition, on or about 17 September 2026, Raja Norazli bin Raja Nordin received a letter from Tunku Nadzaruddin ibni Almarhum Tuanku Ja’afar purporting to remove him as Secretary of the Dewan. No one other than DYMM Tuanku Muhriz ibni Almarhum Tuanku Munawir may remove the Secretary of the Dewan. The Dewan has referred that act to its solicitors and reserves its position.
LETTERS DATED 30 SEPTEMBER 2026
The Letters are each styled a “warkah” issued by a person other than DYMM Tuanku Muhriz, “on his own behalf and on behalf of the four Undang and the Tunku Besar Tampin”, and are co-signed by the signatories of the Document. Among other things, the Letters ask the Federal authorities to withdraw the posting of the State Secretary, to give no effect to State Government Gazettes issued in the name of DYMM Tuanku Muhriz, and not to issue any instrument in the name of the Yang di-Pertuan Besar without their approval. The Dewan rejects those requests for the following reasons.
Both letters rest entirely on the documents dated 19 April 2026 and 5 September 2026. For the reasons set out in this statement, those documents have no effect. DYMM Tuanku Muhriz remains Yang di-Pertuan Besar, and the Dewan does not recognise any other person as holding that office (paragraph 9). The title of Yang di-Pertuan Besar is held by DYMM Tuanku Muhriz alone.
The Letters are also co-signed by the signatories as “Pembesar Memerintah” (Ruling Chiefs). On the Dewan’s advice (paragraph 16), three of those who signed as Undang do not hold that office. They cannot act, or give any consent, as “the four Undang and the Tunku Besar Tampin” (“Ruling Chiefs”).
The posting of the State Secretary is a matter within the jurisdiction of the relevant Service Commission (Article 37(1)). The Dewan notes only that the Letters seek his removal after he declined to gazette the proclamation (paragraph 39). The requests that the Federal authorities give no effect to instruments issued in the name of DYMM Tuanku Muhriz, and that future gazettes be submitted for the approval of persons without lawful authority, have no basis in UUTKNS 1959 and should be given no effect. In the Dewan’s carefully considered view, the issuance of the Letters is an act of derhaka (treason against the Ruler) and may also give rise to a criminal offence under the Penal Code.
DIRECTIONS TO PUBLIC OFFICERS
The Document directs public officers to disregard the commands, appointments and directions of Duli Yang Maha Mulia Tuanku Muhriz. That direction has no basis and risks undermining the administration of the State. The signatories of the documents dated 19 April 2026 and 5 September 2026 have no power to issue directions to the State Secretary or to any State officer.
Public officers are bound to act in accordance with UUTKNS 1959, Federal and State law, court orders, the decisions of lawful authorities and the official chain of command. They are not bound by directions from persons whose own positions and claims are in dispute. The same applies to Federal Government officers serving in this State, and to the Federal authorities responsible for printing and publishing the State Government Gazette.
POSITION OF THE DEWAN
Accordingly, the Dewan:
(a) maintains its decision of 31 July 2026 that the document dated 19 April 2026 does not comply with Article 10, is unconstitutional and has no effect, and that no lawful process has caused Duli Yang Maha Mulia Tuanku Muhriz ibni Almarhum Tuanku Munawir to cease holding the office of Yang di-Pertuan Besar;
(b) continues to recognise DYMM Tuanku Muhriz as Yang di-Pertuan Besar of Negeri Sembilan and Yang di-Pertua of the Dewan under Article 19, does not recognise any vacancy in that office, and does not recognise any other person as holding it;
(c) calls upon all public servants, State and Federal, to continue administering the State in accordance with the law and the lawful chain of command;
(d) requires any party claiming that a “full and complete enquiry” was conducted to produce the complete record of that process before a forum of competent jurisdiction; and
(e) reminds all parties to respect proceedings before the courts, to preserve public order, and not to use adat as a pretext for setting aside UUTKNS 1959.The Dewan’s advice concerning the offices of the four Undang and the Tunku Besar Tampin (“Ruling Chiefs”) remains in force and is final under Article 16(3) of UUTKNS 1959. Matters relating to the sitting of 17 April 2026 are the subject of pending proceedings in the High Court. The Dewan will address them in Court and makes no further comment on them here.
CONCLUSION
The Dewan respectfully requests the Federal Government and Federal authorities, the Governments of all States, the officers of Negeri Sembilan and the people of Negeri Sembilan to take note of this statement. The Dewan also requests that they give no effect to the Document dated 2 October 2026, to the Letters dated 30 September 2026, or to the documents dated 19 April 2026 and 5 September 2026 on which they rest.
The Dewan further respectfully requests that the enforcement authorities, in particular the Royal Malaysia Police (PDRM) and the Attorney General’s Chambers, take appropriate steps to investigate and prosecute the criminal offences committed through the actions described above. This is important so that those persons do not continue to take actions and make statements contrary to the constitution and the law that will confuse the State administration and the public.
The institution of adat does not belong to any individual or group. It is a trust, to be discharged in accordance with the text of UUTKNS 1959, the lawful record and justice to all parties. The Dewan stands ready at all times to perform the functions entrusted to it by UUTKNS 1959, and any question of adat within the scope of those functions may be brought before it through the proper channels. Adat dijunjung, pusaka dipelihara (Adat upheld, heritage preserved).
Issued on the direction of the Dewan Keadilan dan Undang Negeri Sembilan Darul Khusus.
SECRETARY
DEWAN KEADILAN DAN UNDANG
NEGERI SEMBILAN DARUL KHUSUS
4 October 2026, corresponding to 21 Rabiulakhir 1448H
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.
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.
