Does Article 79 Let the Ruling Chiefs Convene a DKU Sitting on 5 June?
A constitutional scholar says yes. We disagree. The signatories may gather on 5 June. Whether that gathering constitutes a lawful sitting of the Dewan is another matter entirely.
On 31 May, a constitutional scholar, Datuk Dr Wan Ahmad Fauzi Wan Husain, made an academic case for the validity of a special sitting of the Dewan Keadilan dan Undang (DKU) on 5 June, proposed by the removed Undang Mubarak and five Adat office-holders (Utusan Malaysia, 31 May 2026).
Wan Ahmad Fauzi argues that the Undang Yang Empat1 and the Tunku Besar Tampin hold a prerogative to convene the DKU, because the Constitution places no restriction on how a sitting may be called, comparing it to the Conference of Rulers.
What is the prerogative argument for the 5 June sitting?
Wan Ahmad Fauzi’s case rests on three arguments.
First, he observes that the Constitution does not expressly state who may convene a DKU sitting.
Second, he draws an analogy to the Conference of Rulers, a body whose meetings may be summoned by a number of the Malay Rulers, to suggest that a member-initiated call is not unusual.
Third, he locates the members’ authority in Article 79, the provision that reserves the prerogatives of His Highness and the Ruling Chiefs, while accepting that the Yang di-Pertuan Besar would ordinarily preside and that the members may choose a substitute in his absence.
The first point is sound, and worth conceding plainly. From there, his arguments meet several problems.
1. The Constitution does not expressly confer the power to convene a meeting
The Negeri Sembilan Constitution does not specify who may convene a DKU sitting.
But a textual gap is not the same as a textual grant of power. The Constitution provides no express textual basis for the Ruling Chiefs to claim the power for themselves.
2. Article 79 is a weak foundation for implying it
Article 79 reads that, “except as expressed herein”, meaning except where this Constitution specifically says otherwise, the Constitution shall not affect the prerogatives, powers and jurisdiction of His Highness and the Ruling Chiefs.
Put simply, it means that the Ruler and the Ruling Chiefs keep their traditional powers unless the Constitution specifically changes them. Lawyers call this a “savings clause”. It works as a safety net for powers the Constitution has not otherwise addressed. Two simple rules govern how it operates:
If the Constitution is silent on something, the old customary powers still apply.
If the Constitution has written a specific rule, that written rule wins, and Article 79 does not reach it.
The trouble for the prerogative argument is that Chapter 6 of the Negeri Sembilan Constitution 1959 writes down almost everything about the DKU (a full reproduction of Chapter 6 can be found here):
Under Article 16(1), the Ruling Chiefs may refer a matter to the Dewan for its advice. This provision gives them no power to convene a sitting at which that question would be heard.
Article 17 fixes the membership.
Article 18 fixes the minimum meeting frequency.
Article 19 seats the President.
Article 20 sets the quorum.
Article 21 allows the Dewan to settle its own procedure and appoint committees.
Article 25 reserves the appointment of the Secretary to His Highness.
Chapter 6 sets out much of how the Dewan works. It fixes who sits on it, who presides over it, how many members must be present, how it regulates its own procedure, and how its administration is organised. As such, the scope for Article 79 to operate is relatively limited.
The one thing Chapter 6 does not expressly say is who gets to convene a meeting. If Article 79 has any role here, it is on that narrow point.
Even then, the argument does not go very far. Article 79 preserves the prerogatives of “His Highness and the Ruling Chiefs”. It does not say that the Ruling Chiefs may exercise those powers by themselves against His Highness.
More importantly, calling a meeting is not the same as creating a valid sitting of the Dewan. Chapter 6 still requires a President in the chair and a quorum in attendance. Article 79 cannot override these constitutional requirements.
For a fuller analysis of Chapter 6 and the clauses governing the DKU, read Can Negeri Sembilan’s Ruling Chiefs Suspend the DKU Secretary and Convene Their Own Sitting? and What Is the Dewan Keadilan dan Undang (DKU)?
3. Conference of Rulers analogy does not fit
This analogy highlights more differences than similarities.
The Conference of Rulers is composed of sovereigns of equal rank, each the head of his own state, meeting as peers, which is why a convening call can sensibly originate among them.
The DKU is a single state council in which the Yang di-Pertuan Besar presides and the Ruling Chiefs sit as members beneath that chair, an arrangement Article 19 states in plain terms.
The practice of the Conference of Rulers therefore does not transfer neatly to the DKU.
4. Mubarak, as a signatory, does not hold office
The next problem is who is doing the convening. One of the six signatories, Mubarak, no longer holds the office he claims to act under. He ceased to hold office as Undang of Luak Sungei Ujong on 17 April 2026, his removal carried out under the custom of the Luak and acknowledged by the DKU under Article 16. Under Article 16(3), that advice is final and cannot be challenged in any court. A person who no longer holds an office cannot exercise the authority of that office, and a call to convene that counts him among its signatories is weaker for it.
The 29 May joint media statement also styles its signatories “pemerintah bersama (Co Ruler)” of Negeri Sembilan (Malaysiakini, 29 May 2026).
This publication has set out why the Undangs are not co-rulers of equal standing with the Yang di-Pertuan Besar.
The Constitution refers to the Ruling Chiefs as “Rulers” in Article 28(2) for the purposes of Article 40(2), which sets out seven discretionary functions where the Undangs’ concurrence is required. Outside those seven functions the label carries no power, and those powers do not include convening a DKU sitting as a “co-ruler”.
5. A lawful DKU sitting still requires a lawful chair
The fifth problem is the chair. Even if the six signatories could call a sitting, Article 19 fixes who chairs it. His Highness presides at all meetings, and the members may pick a substitute only “in His absence”. The whole question is what “absence” means.
Absence means the Yang di-Pertuan Besar is unavailable that day, for example, due to travel or illness, so a stand-in holds his seat for that one sitting and hands it back; not because he was deliberately excluded from the meeting.
Deposed means something else entirely, that the seat is no longer his at all.
The 5 June sitting is built on the second claim, not the first. The 29 May joint media statement says Tuanku Muhriz’s authority has been stripped, and the signatories have named Tunku Nadzaruddin Tuanku Ja’afar as the Yang di-Pertuan Besar (Malaysiakini, 29 May 2026).
If Tunku Nadzaruddin is the new Ruler, he could technically take the chair, even though their 29 May statement neither named him nor called him to preside over the 5 June meeting.
The difficulty is that the same “if” decides everything. Tunku Nadzaruddin can chair only if he is genuinely the Yang di-Pertuan Besar, and he holds that office only if the April declaration that removed Tuanku Muhriz and installed him was valid.
Earlier pieces in this publication, along with former Malaysian Bar president Christopher Leong, constitutional lawyer Datuk Malik Imtiaz Sarwar, former Court of Appeal judge Datuk Seri Mohd Hishamudin Yunus, ex-AGC Deputy Public Prosecutor Liyana Marzuki and DAP Secretary-General Anthony Loke, have argued that the 19 April declaration deposing Tuanku Muhriz as the Yang di-Pertuan Besar is invalid because the constitutional requirements for removal were not met.
The logic in the argument is circular. The sitting is lawful only if its chair is lawful. The chair is lawful only if Tunku Nadzaruddin is truly the Yang di-Pertuan Besar, and he holds that office only if the April declaration was valid. The validity of that declaration is the very issue in dispute. A sitting cannot derive its authority from assuming the conclusion on which its own authority depends.
Can the DKU sit on matters now before the High Court?
There is a further obstacle that has nothing to do with prerogative. The DKU Secretary has stated that a special sitting cannot be convened while the subject matter is before the courts, since the questions the sitting would take up overlap with live litigation (The Star, 28 May 2026).
Mubarak and five other office-holders have an originating summons pending in the Seremban High Court, with the jurisdictional objection set for hearing on 28 July. A sitting that presses ahead with substantially the same questions as are before the court raises a sub judice concern and risks giving the impression that the matter is being determined outside the judicial process.
What this means
A power to call a meeting is not the same as a power to constitute a lawful sitting of the DKU. Even if Article 79 permits the members to initiate a meeting, the Constitution still governs how the Dewan sits, who presides over it, and whether those purporting to exercise its powers lawfully hold the offices from which those powers arise.
Two of these difficulties are particularly significant. Mubarak no longer holds the office he claims to act under. And the sitting's authority depends entirely on accepting the 19 April declaration as valid, which has been strongly disputed.
As the perbilangan adat has it,
Berjenjang naik, bertangga turun. Authority climbs and descends by its proper rungs.
The signatories may gather on 5 June. Whether that gathering constitutes a lawful sitting of the Dewan is another matter entirely.
Read Next: Can Negeri Sembilan’s Ruling Chiefs Suspend the DKU Secretary and Convene Their Own Sitting?
Footnote:
1 This publication uses the term “Undang Yang Empat” to refer to the four chieftains who signed the 19 April declaration. Mubarak Dohak ceased to hold office as Undang of Luak Sungei Ujong on 17 April 2026, his removal having occurred under the custom of the Luak and acknowledged by the Dewan Keadilan dan Undang (DKU) under Article 16 of the Negeri Sembilan Constitution 1959. 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.
Related Posts:
Sources:
The Laws of the Constitution of Negeri Sembilan 1959 (Negeri Sembilan State Government), 1959
Undangs take Negeri Sembilan crisis to court (Free Malaysia Today), 5 May 2026
Enam pembesar adat NS arah DKU buat sidang khas bincang kemelut (Malaysiakini), 23 May 2026
‘Kami amat murka’ - Undang Luak berempat gantung tugas setiausaha DKU (Malaysiakini), 29 May 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.
