(First published 25 April 2026. Updated 23 October 2026)
Negeri Sembilan has been in a constitutional dispute since 19 April 2026, when four chiefs signing as the “Undang Yang Empat”¹ declared that the Yang di-Pertuan Besar, Tuanku Muhriz ibni Almarhum Tuanku Munawir, had been removed, and named Tunku Nadzaruddin ibni Almarhum Tuanku Ja’afar in his place.
This article summarises events, key players, constitutional framework, court and political tracks in the crisis. For every event in full, with sources, see our detailed timeline.
Who are the key players in this crisis?
Tuanku Muhriz ibni Almarhum Tuanku Munawir is the 11th Yang di-Pertuan Besar (Supreme Ruler) of Negeri Sembilan. He ascended the throne on 29 December 2008, following the death of his predecessor Tuanku Ja’afar ibni Almarhum Tuanku Abdul Rahman. Tuanku Muhriz is known for his principled, anti-corruption public stance, most notably a January 2026 speech in which he described corruption as “the foremost enemy of justice and trust.”
The Undang Yang Empat are the four elected chieftains of Negeri Sembilan’s four territorial divisions (Luak). On 19 April, they were:
Mubarak Dohak, the Undang of Luak Sungei Ujong (The DKU acknowledged his removal under the custom of the Luak on 17 April 2026, with effect from 13 May 2025.)
Maarof Mat Rashad, the Undang of Luak Jelebu. (The DKU acknowledged his removal with effect from 31 May 2023.)
Abdul Rahim Yasin, the Undang of Luak Rembau. (The DKU maintains that his appointment in 2024 was never completed.)
Muhammed Abdullah, the Undang of Luak Johol. He is the only signatory whose office is not disputed.
The Menteri Besar (Chief Minister) heads the state government of Negeri Sembilan.
Dato’ Seri Utama Aminuddin bin Harun held the Menteri Besar position until the state election of 1 August 2026. He has firmly backed Tuanku Muhriz throughout this crisis.
Dato’ Ismail Lasim was appointed Menteri Besar on 2 August and swore his loyalty to Tuanku Muhriz. The following day, he signed a proclamation purporting to remove Tuanku Muhriz as Yang di-Pertuan Besar, although he later claimed that he had signed it under duress. His subsequent public positions shifted multiple times, culminating in his endorsement of the Executive Council’s statement recognising the proclamation as valid.
Tunku Nadzaruddin ibni Almarhum Tuanku Ja’afar is the youngest son of the late Tuanku Ja’afar, and was named by the “Undang Yang Empat” as the proposed replacement for Tuanku Muhriz.
The Dewan Keadilan dan Undang (DKU) is the council of the Yang di-Pertuan Besar and the Ruling Chiefs established under Article 16. It advises on questions of Malay custom, including the election, removal and vacation of office of the Ruling Chiefs.
Rais Yatim, a former Menteri Besar and Dewan Negara president, has been serving as legal adviser to the signatories. Rais announced the 5 June proclamation of Tunku Nadzaruddin in Melaka. On 30 July, Tuanku Muhriz revoked two state honours Rais held, and he has since been charged with sedition over remarks made at the 5 June proclamation.
What makes Negeri Sembilan’s monarchy unique?
Negeri Sembilan is the only Malaysian state whose Ruler is elected. Under Article 7(2) of the Negeri Sembilan Constitution 1959, the Yang di-Pertuan Besar is elected by the Undangs of Sungei Ujong, Jelebu, Johol and Rembau, in accordance with the custom of the state.
The system draws on two lines of descent. The Undangs are chosen within their Luak under Adat Perpatih, the customary system brought from Minangkabau in West Sumatra, in which descent and clan membership pass through the mother’s line. The Yang di-Pertuan Besar, by contrast, must under Article 7(3) be a descendant in the male line of Raja Radin ibni Raja Lenggang. The Undangs choose the Ruler, but only from a pool of candidates the Constitution has already fixed.
Removal is governed by Article 10(1). The Undangs may call on the Yang di-Pertuan Besar to abdicate only “after full and complete enquiry”, and only on specified grounds: a grave defect such as insanity, a base quality barred by Hukum Syarak (Islamic law), an overt act detrimental to the dignity of the office, or deliberate disregard of the Constitution. Under Article 10(2), a proclamation must then be issued “under the hands of the Undangs and the Menteri Besar”. Only when the office has become vacant does Article 11 give the Undangs the duty to elect a successor.
The Undangs themselves are elected and removed under the custom of their Luak. Article 16(1) gives the DKU the task of advising on questions of custom, including the removal of a Ruling Chief, and Article 16(3) makes that advice final: it “shall not be challenged or called in question in any court on any ground”.
What happened before 19 April 2026?
To understand the crisis, it is essential to understand what happened before the declaration of 19 April.
The removal of Mubarak Dohak
On 17 April 2026, the DKU convened a special sitting at Istana Besar Seri Menanti at 10am. At that sitting, the Ibu Soko Klana Hulu and Waris Klana Hulu were formally invited to attend under Article 24. The DKU was then presented with 33 grounds for the removal of Mubarak bin Dohak as Undang Luak Sungei Ujong.
The DKU acknowledged acceptance of Mubarak's removal, which had occurred in accordance with the Adat of Luak Sungei Ujong. This was confirmed in an official media statement by Menteri Besar Aminuddin on the same day.
What happened on 19 April 2026?
On 19 April 2026, just two days after his removal, Mubarak, along with the other three Undang, staged a public declaration at the Balai Undang Luak Sungei Ujong. The event was livestreamed on the official Luak Sungei Ujong Facebook page, without taking questions from the press. The declaration cited Article 10(1)(b) as its sole constitutional basis, referred to misconduct only in general terms, and did not bear the Menteri Besar’s signature.
Two declarations were read:
That Tuanku Muhriz was removed as Yang di-Pertuan Besar on grounds of misconduct
That Tunku Nadzaruddin ibni Almarhum Tuanku Ja’afar was installed as the new Yang di-Pertuan Besar
The declaration was witnessed by Dato’ Syahbandar Sungei Ujong, Dato’ Baharudin Abdul Khalid.
In the early hours of 20 April, Menteri Besar Aminuddin issued a statement firmly rejecting the declaration. He stated that the state government did not recognise or accept the move, on the grounds that Mubarak had already been removed as Undang and therefore held no authority to participate in or read the declaration. The Menteri Besar further stated that the action contravened Articles 10, 11 and 12 of the Negeri Sembilan Constitution 1959.
How has the crisis developed since April?
June: an injunction, and a proclamation in Melaka
On 5 June, six chiefs attempted to convene a special DKU sitting at Tampin to suspend the DKU Secretary and install Tunku Nadzaruddin as the 12th Yang di-Pertuan Besar of Negeri Sembilan. The Seremban High Court granted the DKU interim injunctions stopping the sitting and preserving its status quo. Hours later, Rais Yatim announced that Tunku Nadzaruddin had been proclaimed the 12th Yang di-Pertuan Besar at a hotel in Melaka. The palace declared the ceremony void, and the DKU began contempt proceedings against six chiefs over it.
June to October: three new Undangs
Sungei Ujong and Rembau installed new Undangs before Tuanku Muhriz on 27 June. At its special sitting on 31 July, the DKU acknowledged both installations, the Luak of Jelebu’s removal of Maarof, the Luak’s removal of Dato’ Shahbandar and advised that the 19 April declaration was unconstitutional under Article 10. Jelebu’s new Undang, Azrin Khairi, was installed on 14 October. Of the 19 April signatories, only the Undang of Johol now holds an office the DKU recognises.
August: a snap state election, a new Menteri Besar, and a signature
The State Legislative Assembly was dissolved on 5 June to resolve the political uncertainty in the state after 14 UMNO assemblymen withdrew their support for the government. Barisan Nasional and Perikatan Nasional won the snap election on 1 August, and Ismail Lasim was sworn in as Menteri Besar before Tuanku Muhriz the next day.
On 3 August, the day after taking his oath before Tuanku Muhriz, Ismail signed the signatories’ proclamation.
September: the State Executive Council and the Ruler
On 5 September, the signatories claimed that Ismail had signed the proclamation on 3 August at an audience with Tunku Nadzaruddin in Port Dickson. After reaffirming his loyalty to Tuanku Muhriz on 6 September and 8 September, Ismail said on 9 September that he had signed under duress, had lodged a police report, and regarded the proclamation as invalid for failing to comply with Article 10.
On 15 September, in a statement issued on behalf of the State Executive Council after its meeting that day, he said a Menteri Besar has no unilateral power to remove the Yang di-Pertuan Besar and that the proclamation’s validity depended on whether every condition in Article 10 had been met.
On 16 September, the State Executive Council declared the 19 April proclamation valid and recognised Tunku Nadzaruddin (see EXCO statement).
Ismail confirmed the decision to reporters on 17 September, saying it had been unanimous and that the State Secretary had been directed to gazette the proclamation.
Former Menteri Besar Aminuddin Harun and the DKU’s lawyers each described the conduct as derhaka (treason against the Ruler).
On 17 September, the DKU restated that Tuanku Muhriz remains Yang di-Pertuan Besar (see DKU statement). The Attorney General’s Chambers said the Executive Council had no power to vacate the Yang di-Pertuan Besar office, and the State Secretary declined to gazette the proclamation (see AGC statement).
On 20 September, Tuanku Muhriz revoked the appointments of all ten Executive Council members under Article 38(5) (see palace statement).
Ismail disputed the revocation and tried to suspended the State Secretary and State Legal Adviser, a step the Attorney General’s Chambers said the Executive Council had no authority to take.
On 22 September, the signatories and the Tunku Besar Tampin issued a joint statement claiming the removal of Tuanku Muhriz as their own act, warning the Prime Minister and the Attorney General’s Chambers not to interfere, and calling on civil servants to give their loyalty to Tunku Nadzaruddin. This publication has examined the legal questions that statement raises.
The court track
Five sets of proceedings have arisen from the dispute. Three remain live and two have closed.
The Seremban suit (NA-24NCvC-240-05/2026). Mubarak Dohak and five others filed suit on 5 May seeking the minutes of the Dewan Keadilan dan Undang (DKU)’s 17 April sitting. An injunction granted on 5 June has led to committal proceedings over alleged breaches, now also involving Menteri Besar Ismail Lasim and ten former EXCO members. The Court of Appeal has temporarily stayed the earlier committal proceedings against the original six. Next dates: 4 November (Court of Appeal stay decision); 17 November (case management).
The former EXCO members’ suit. Ten former EXCO members challenged the revocation of their appointments on 5 October, raising constitutional questions about the Yang di-Pertuan Besar’s authority to revoke appointments without the Menteri Besar’s advice. The State Government disputes the procedure used to bring the suit, while the DKU has applied to intervene. Next dates: 2 November (DKU intervention); 16 November (State Government’s preliminary objection).
The sedition charge against Rais Yatim. He was charged on 25 September over remarks made at the Melaka proclamation on 5 June. He has pleaded not guilty.
Next date: 27 October, the case returns to court for mention.[Closed] The eviction suits. The State Government’s applications to recover the official residences and Balai Undang of Sungei Ujong and Rembau were dismissed on 24 August because the wrong party had brought them. The judge recorded that the ruling gave neither occupant a right to remain, and that it did not decide who holds either office.
[Closed] The Kuala Lumpur judicial review, WA-25-201-07/2026. Filed on 17 July by the four signatories, it sought an order compelling the Menteri Besar to sign their proclamation, and a declaration that the 19 April document was valid. They withdrew it on 7 October on the ground that it had become academic. The court barred them from refiling and ordered RM40,000 in costs.
The political track
On 27 April 2026, the crisis took on a new agenda, shifting from royal dispute to a political play.
A withdrawal of support, then a reversal. On 27 April, all 14 UMNO-Barisan Nasional assemblymen withdrew their support for Menteri Besar Aminuddin Harun, citing his handling of the royal crisis. Pakatan Harapan described the move as a backdoor attempt to take over the state government. Three days later, after meeting UMNO president Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, UMNO reversed agreed to stay in the state unity government.
A snap election. On 4 June, Aminuddin announced the dissolution of the State Legislative Assembly with Tuanku Muhriz’s consent. Barisan Nasional and Perikatan Nasional won 25 of 36 seats on 1 August, and Ismail Lasim was appointed Menteri Besar.
An Executive Council of one. After the Executive Council recognised Tunku Nadzaruddin on 16 September, Tuanku Muhriz revoked the appointments of its ten other members under Article 38(5), which says they hold office at the Ruler’s pleasure. Ismail argues that Article 40(1) required his advice first. The Attorney General says the revocation is valid. Ismail has not submitted a new list, and he remains the only member of the Executive Council.
The state’s senior officers. Ismail’s suspension of the State Secretary and State Legal Adviser was rejected by the Attorney General’s Chambers, because both are appointed by federal service commissions under Article 37.
The question of party involvement. The Straits Times has reported that Tuanku Muhriz “has held a public stance against corruption and abuse of power – in particular the appointment of judges – that has made him some powerful enemies amongst Malaysia’s elite”, including “UMNO leaders who are spearheading the move to pardon former prime minister Najib Razak”. UMNO secretary-general Asyraf Wajdi Dusuki has denied that the party is involved in the dispute.
What does the crisis expose?
The crisis exposes five areas of strain in Negeri Sembilan’s constitutional system.
1. The constitutional conflict
The disagreement concerns more than which individual holds the office. It turns on whether the procedure in Article 10 was followed to the letter, whether the people who acted as Undangs held those offices, whether the finality of the DKU’s advice under Article 16 is accepted, and whether a vacancy existed before Article 11 could operate. The two sides read the same words differently.
2. The Luaks and the DKU
These questions also bear on the contested boundary between the custom of each Luak and the DKU’s advisory jurisdiction under Article 16. The Luak removes an Undang under its own custom, and the DKU acknowledges that removal. The relationship comes under strain when rival groups of Adat leaders within the Luaks of Sungei Ujong, Rembau and Jelebu dispute who speaks for the custom of their Luak.
3. What the Constitution leaves undefined
The dispute has also exposed what the 1959 Constitution leaves undefined. Article 10(1) requires a “full and complete enquiry” but sets no procedure, forum, notice or right of reply, and no court has interpreted the term.
Article 14 provides that Undangs are removed under the custom of their Luak but sets no procedure for enforcing their removal when the removed office-holder does not accept it.
The DKU’s own procedures, such as access to its minutes under Article 22, quorum under Article 20 and the question of whether its advice requires the agreement of a majority of its members, have all been contested.
4. Adat and the written Constitution
Underneath all of it sits Article 32, which preserves ancient custom only where it is consistent with the written text, without saying where that line falls. Both camps have invoked Adat against the Constitution and the Constitution against Adat, testing a relationship that has always depended on each drawing legitimacy from the other.
5. The problem of enforcement
The DKU’s advice is final under Article 16(3), but the Constitution gives it no means of enforcing that advice. The removed Undangs have continued to sign proclamations and issue directions in the titles of their former offices, and to occupy the official residences and Balai of Sungei Ujong and Rembau. The state government’s attempt to recover those buildings was dismissed in August because the wrong party had brought the suit. The contempt proceedings over the 5 June injunction are stayed pending appeal. Police reports have been lodged on both sides, and one criminal charge has been brought. Each route to enforcement has passed to a different authority, and none has yet brought the matter to a close.
Where does the crisis stand?
As of October 2026, Tuanku Muhriz is the Yang di-Pertuan Besar and continues to exercise his functions and powers accordingly. The DKU, the Federal Government, the Attorney General’s Chambers and the State Secretary’s Office continue to recognise him in that capacity.
Negeri Sembilan’s system distributes authority among the Yang di-Pertuan Besar, the Undangs, the Luak institutions, the DKU and the elected state government. Six months of declarations, signatures and statements have tested that division.
Article 10(1) still asks for one thing before the Undangs can call on a Ruler to abdicate, a full and complete enquiry. Yet, no record of one has been produced.
Footnotes:
¹ This publication uses the term “Undang Yang Empat” to refer to the four chieftains who signed the 19 April declaration. Mubarak Dohak ceased to hold office as Undang of Luak Sungei Ujong on 17 April 2026, his removal having occurred under the custom of the Luak and acknowledged by the Dewan Keadilan dan Undang (DKU) under Article 16 of the Negeri Sembilan Constitution 1959. The DKU has since acknowledged the removal of Maarof Mat Rashad as Undang of Luak Jelebu and maintains that the appointment of Abdul Rahim Yasin as Undang of Luak Rembau was never completed. Under Article 16(3), DKU advice on such questions is final and cannot be challenged in any court.
The Constitution numbers its Articles in Roman numerals. This publication uses Arabic numerals for readability.
Go Deeper:
If you wish to go deeper into understanding the crisis, read:
The Negeri Sembilan Crisis Timeline: key events since April 2026 in date order, with sources for each entry.
Court Documents and Media Statements: the filings, official statements and joint statements in the original Malay, with English translations, where available.
Reference Library: key Articles of the Negeri Sembilan Constitution 1959, explained clause by clause.
Start Here: all our posts organised by theme.
Sources:
See our detailed timeline for full sources of each event.
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.
