(Updated 10 August 2026 for what happened at the hearing)
A judicial review application concerning the disputed removal of the Yang di-Pertuan Besar of Negeri Sembilan was filed at the High Court of Malaya in Kuala Lumpur on 17 July 2026.
The ex parte application for leave was listed for hearing on 10 August at 9.30am before Puan Noriza binti Othman. The case number is WA-25-201-07/2026.
The plaintiffs ask the court to compel the Menteri Besar of Negeri Sembilan to sign a Proclamation under Article 10(2) of the Negeri Sembilan Constitution 1959. They also seek a declaration that the Proclamation is valid under Articles 10(1)(b) and 10(2).
How this publication obtained the document
Copies of the application have been circulating on Facebook on 6 and 7th August.
Documents filed through the Malaysian judiciary’s electronic filing system carry a serial number that can be checked through its document verification portal.
Using the serial number printed on the circulating extract (Oxak13/m90qB5RFe2vQjaQ), this publication independently retrieved and verified the four-page court document. It confirms the case number, parties, filing date and relief sought.
The court document places the case in the High Court of Malaya in Kuala Lumpur and a full English translation can be found here.
Who filed the case?
The four plaintiffs are named in the papers as:
YTM Dato’ Klana Petra, Dato’ Haji Mubarak bin Thahak
YTM Dato’ Mendika Menteri Akhirulzaman, Dato’ Maarof bin Haji Mat Rashad
YTM Dato’ Johan Pahlawan Lela Perkasa Sitiawan, Dato’ Muhammed bin Haji Abdullah
YTM Dato’ Sedia Raja, Dato’ Haji Abdul Rahim bin Haji Yasin
They are the four signatories to the declaration issued on 19 April purporting to remove Tuanku Muhriz as Yang di-Pertuan Besar.
The defendants are:
Menteri Besar Negeri Sembilan
Kerajaan (Government) of Negeri Sembilan
They are named by office rather than individual name. When the application was filed on 17 July, Aminuddin Harun was Menteri Besar (MB). Datuk Ismail Lasim took office on 2 August (Free Malaysia Today, 2 August 2026).
The supporting affidavit was affirmed by the third plaintiff, Muhammed Abdullah. The full supporting affidavit with an English translation can be found here.
What are they asking the court to do?
The application first seeks permission to begin judicial review proceedings.
It then asks for an order of mandamus:
“Suatu perintah Mandamus bagi mengarahkan Defendan Pertama menandatangani dokumen Perisytiharan seperti di eksibit DMA-1 menurut Perkara 10(2) Undang-Undang Tubuh Kerajaan Negeri Sembilan 1959 dalam tempoh tujuh (7) hari daripada perintah Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini.”
Translation:
An order of mandamus directing the First Defendant to sign the Proclamation document exhibited as DMA-1 pursuant to Article 10(2) of the Negeri Sembilan Constitution 1959, within seven days of the court’s order.
The First Defendant is the Menteri Besar.
The plaintiffs also seek:
“Suatu deklarasi bahawa Dokumen Perisytiharan seperti di eksibit DMA-1 adalah dokumen Perisytiharan yang sah menurut Perkara 10(1)(b) dan 10(2) Undang-Undang Tubuh Kerajaan Negeri Sembilan 1959.”
Translation:
A declaration that the Proclamation document exhibited as DMA-1 is a valid Proclamation under Articles 10(1)(b) and 10(2) of the Negeri Sembilan Constitution 1959.
The document exhibited as DMA-1 is the sabda issued at Balai Undang Sungei Ujong on 19 April 2026. An English translation appears in our Court Documents section: Exhibit DMA-1, 19 April 2026.
The plaintiffs are asking for the MB’s signature as well as the court to declare the 19 April Proclamation constitutionally valid.
Court documents sighted by The Edge record that the proclamation the plaintiffs seek to have signed would remove Tuanku Muhriz from the office of Yang di-Pertuan Besar and further proclaim Tunku Nadzaruddin as the 12th Yang di-Pertuan Besar. The plaintiffs also seek a declaration that the document the four of them signed on 19 April is valid under the Negeri Sembilan Constitution (The Edge Malaysia, 7 August 2026).
What is mandamus?
Mandamus is a court order requiring a public official or body to perform a public duty imposed by law.
In simple terms, the court can compel someone to carry out an existing legal obligation. The applicant therefore has to establish that the obligation exists and that the legal conditions requiring its performance have arisen.
Here, the plaintiffs say Article 10(2) requires the MB to sign.
Why does the signature matter?
Article 10(2) provides that, after a Yang di-Pertuan Besar has been called upon to abdicate:
“as soon as possible thereafter a proclamation to that effect shall be issued under the hands of the Undangs and the Menteri Besar.”
The declaration issued on 19 April did not carry the MB’s signature.
Former Court of Appeal judge Datuk Seri Mohd Hishamudin Yunus identified that omission as one of several constitutional problems with the declaration (The Edge Malaysia, 22 April 2026).
The July application now asks the High Court to compel the MB to provide the signature required by Article 10(2).
That raises an obvious question: were the constitutional conditions necessary to require the MB’s signature satisfied in the first place?
Who is acting for the plaintiffs?
The application was filed by Azam Aziz & Co, acting as solicitors for the four plaintiffs.
The firm’s involvement is significant because its lawyer Mohd Khairul Azam Abdul Aziz has already appeared for the same bloc in the wider Negeri Sembilan dispute. He was identified in earlier reporting as counsel acting for the Undangs in proceedings arising from the DKU dispute (Malaysiakini, 12 June 2026).
Khairul Azam is also experienced in constitutional litigation involving royal powers. He has previously litigated the reach of the civil courts into royal constitutional power. He brought proceedings in February 2020 seeking declarations that the Pardons Board which advised on Anwar Ibrahim's 2018 pardon was improperly constituted and that the pardon was invalid. The Court of Appeal struck the suit out, and in January 2023 the Federal Court refused leave to appeal, holding that the question of non-justiciability was settled (Malay Mail, 10 January 2023).
Update: 10 August 2026
No leave hearing took place.
The matter came before Justice Norliza Othman for case management and was adjourned to 7 October 2026 (Free Malaysia Today, 10 August 2026).
Four applications to intervene
Four parties applied to be heard in the case.
The Dewan Keadilan dan Undang (DKU) and its secretary, Raja Norazli Raja Nordin, applied on 6 August to be added as third and fourth respondents, and for the applicants to furnish them with the full cause papers. They contended that they hold a direct interest in the matter, Tuanku Muhriz being chairman of the DKU, and that any purported removal would bear on the body’s governance, membership and functions. They further sought a stay of the leave application pending disposal of the intervention.
Faris Johari, the Undang of Sungei Ujong who replaced Mubarak, and Hassan Ab Hamid, the Undang of Rembau, each filed similar applications, separately represented.
Intervention matters here because the applicants chose their own respondents: the Menteri Besar and the state government. Anyone else affected by the outcome must obtain the court’s permission before filing evidence or making submissions.
What the interveners argued
The DKU and its secretary argued that the application, filed on 17 July, was brought out of time. They contended that the purported decision to remove Tuanku Muhriz was made on 5 March, which under Order 53 rule 3 of the Rules of Court 2012 would have required any leave application to be filed by 5 June.
The 5 March date comes from Muhammed Abdullah (Undang of Johol)’s sworn evidence. In his supporting affidavit, he stated that on 5 March he attended a DKU sitting at Istana Besar Seri Menanti, together with the First (Mubarak) and Second Plaintiffs (Maarof), chaired by Tuanku Muhriz, also attended by Tunku Besar Tampin and the Dato’ Shahbandar of Sungei Ujong, with the state legal adviser and the mufti present. He stated that the sitting became heated after Mubarak raised alleged breaches of Adat (customary law) by Tuanku Muhriz, that the four then withdrew and reconvened at Balai Undang Sungei Ujong, and that at the second gathering they listed the purported offences and concluded that Tuanku Muhriz was no longer qualified to hold office as the 11th Yang di-Pertuan Besar. He stated that no action followed from the state government, and that the four therefore proceeded as they did. The full supporting affidavit is available here.
The interveners further argued that the 19 April declaration under challenge was revoked by the DKU on 31 July, recorded in its official statement of 1 August, leaving nothing for the court to determine.
They contended that two of the applicants no longer held their respective Undang positions, and that a third was never lawfully installed as Undang of Rembau, the required customary installation having gone uncompleted. Muhammed Abdullah continues to hold office as Undang of Johol.
They said that the applicants had failed to disclose material facts, among them a separate originating summons in the Seremban High Court, an interim injunction granted against them on 5 June, and committal proceedings arising from alleged breaches of court orders. An interim stay granted by the Court of Appeal on 29 July remains in force.
On the substance, they argued that the purported declaration had been made without the full and complete enquiry required by Article 10(1), and without notice to Tuanku Muhriz or an opportunity for him to be heard. They further argued that no declaration bearing the signatures of the Undangs and the Menteri Besar, as Article 10(2) requires, was ever issued.
The question of forum
Justice Norliza directed counsel to determine whether the application should continue in Kuala Lumpur or be transferred to Seremban. She observed that the applicants had filed an earlier originating summons at the Seremban High Court in May which has yet to be heard, and instructed Khairul Azam to take instructions from his clients, to avoid the risk of conflicting decisions (The Edge Malaysia, 10 August 2026).
The application for a gag order
Khairul Azam made an oral application for a gag order prohibiting public discussion of the matter. The DKU and the Negeri Sembilan government opposed it on the ground that the case involves matters of public interest, and the court declined to grant it.
What happens on 7 October 2026
Parties return to the Kuala Lumpur High Court on 7 October to update the court on the progress of the case.
Read next: What Does the Negeri Sembilan Constitution Actually Say About Removing a Ruler?
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:
Opinion: Thoughts on the Negeri Sembilan constitution (The Edge Malaysia, 22 April 2026)
Lawyer fails to get leave to challenge PM Anwar’s 2018 royal pardon (Malay Mail, 10 January 2023)
Lawyer loses bid to challenge legality of Anwar’s royal pardon (The Edge Malaysia, 10 January 2023)
Opinion: Thoughts on the Negeri Sembilan constitution (The Edge Malaysia, 22 April 2026)
Lawyer claims Tunku Panglima Besar appointment unconstitutional (Malaysiakini, 12 June 2026)
7-term rep Ismail Lasim is 12th Negeri Sembilan MB (Free Malaysia Today, 2 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.
