What does derhaka mean?
Derhaka has no statutory definition in Malaysian law. It belongs instead to the older language of Malay kingship, describing treason, disobedience, disloyalty or rebellion against a Ruler.
Three areas of law are relevant here:
Section 121B of the Penal Code makes it an offence to compass, imagine, invent, devise or intend the deprivation or deposition of a Ruler, his heirs or successors from the rule of a State. Following amendments in 2023, the offence carries imprisonment for between 30 and 40 years and liability to a fine.
The Sedition Act 1948 has been used in cases involving statements concerning Rulers.
Contempt of court arises where a court order is alleged to have been breached and is determined by the court.
Six acts in the 2026 Negeri Sembilan royal crisis have been called derhaka or treasonous. This piece sets out each one, who applied the word, and where the accusation stands today.
1. The 19 April declaration (19 April 2026)
What happened. A declaration purporting to remove Tuanku Muhriz as Yang di-Pertuan Besar was signed by Mubarak Dohak, together with Maarof Mat Rashad, Muhammed Abdullah and Abdul Rahim Yasin, who signed respectively as the Undangs of Luak Sungei Ujong, Jelebu, Johol and Rembau.
Who used the word. The Telaga Undang of Luak Sungei Ujong, Sarifah Norzaidah Al-Qadri, described Mubarak’s participation as penderhakaan (an act of derhaka) and called for legal action (FMT, 20 April 2026). Constitutional lawyer Malik Imtiaz Sarwar separately drew attention to the Penal Code provisions concerning the wrongful deposition of a Ruler (FMT, 23 April 2026).
Where it stands. Mubarak’s removal as Undang was acknowledged by the DKU on 17 April 2026. Menteri Besar Aminuddin and the state government also rejected the declaration, stating that the declaration could not be accepted or recognised because Mubarak no longer held authority as Undang (Malay Mail, 20 April 2026). The DKU subsequently advised that the 19 April declaration had no constitutional effect because the Article 10 requirements had not been satisfied and the necessary office-holders were not in place (Malay Mail, 20 April 2026, Malay Mail, 14 September 2026).
2. The State Assembly boycott (23 April 2026)
What happened. Mubarak, Maarof, Muhammed Abdullah and Abdul Rahim, together with the Tunku Besar Tampin, stayed away from the opening of the State Legislative Assembly after advising that the ceremony be postponed. Tuanku Muhriz attended and delivered the royal address. The Speaker said the proceedings were unaffected by their absence (Malay Mail, 23 April 2026, Malay Mail, 23 April 2026).
Who used the word. Former New Straits Times Group chief executive Kalimullah Hassan asked on Instagram whether chieftains absenting themselves from their Ruler at an official function amounted to derhaka.
“Never have I seen in any official Royal function — be it in Malaysia where we have nine monarchs — or anywhere else in the world of monarchy such a sight of palace chieftains who abandoned their ruler like at the opening of the Negri Sembilan legislative assembly.
I wonder — is this what is termed derhaka (treason, disobedience, disloyalty, or rebellion)? It’s a tragedy that this is what it has come to. Especially in Negri Sembilan, a federation stretching back a few hundred years. The empty chairs, in my view, are a burden of shame on those who chose to indignify the occasion.”
Source: @kalimullah
Where it stands. No institution has subsequently characterised the boycott itself as derhaka, and no legal consequence has been attached to the five empty chairs. The significance is instead political and symbolic: it made visible, for the first time at a major State ceremony, the competing claims over who the chieftains recognised as Yang di-Pertuan Besar.
3. The Melaka hotel proclamation (5 June 2026)
What happened. On 5 June, Rais Yatim announced that Tunku Nadzaruddin Tuanku Ja’afar had been proclaimed the 12th Yang di-Pertuan Besar at a hotel in Alor Gajah, Melaka, with the proclamation read by Maarof on behalf of the four signatories (Malay Mail, 5 June 2026).
The proclamation was followed by attempts to give Tunku Nadzaruddin the public attributes of the office. Tunku Besar Tampin issued a directive dated 9 June instructing the Negeri Sembilan mufti to include prayers for him as the 12th Yang di-Pertuan Besar in Friday sermons across the relevant Luak and Tampin. The mufti said the matter lay outside his office (Malaysiakini, 18 June 2026). On 19 June, a prayer for Tunku Nadzaruddin was read during Friday prayers at Masjid Dato’ Undang Luak Jelebu (Malaysiakini, 19 June 2026).
Who used the word. The Straits Times later reported that the decision to revoke Rais Yatim’s state honours followed a series of actions stretching back several years. Among them was his involvement from 2022 in encouraging the Undang of Jelebu to refer to himself as “Sultan”. The same report said his part in the 5 June proclamation was viewed as treasonous by some in the royal court, and that he had been serving as legal adviser to the Undangs (The Straits Times, 31 July 2026).
Where it stands. The palace declared the installation ceremony invalid under the State Constitution, laws and customs (FMT, 9 June 2026). On 30 July, Tuanku Muhriz revoked two state honours conferred on Rais Yatim. The awards registrar said the action was taken to preserve the dignity of the royal institution (Malay Mail, 30 July 2026). The Palace also said that Tunku Nadzaruddin had relinquished his hereditary title of Tunku Panglima Besar by attempting to accept the purported appointment , Malay Mail, 9 June 2026). Separately, the DKU and its secretary commenced contempt proceedings arising from the breach of the High Court order. On 8 July, the High Court found a prima facie case and granted leave for those proceedings to begin (FMT, 8 July 2026).
4. The proclamation signed by the Menteri Besar (3 August 2026)
What happened. Menteri Besar Datuk Ismail Lasim signed a proclamation instrument at Istana Laguna Biru, Port Dickson, confirming the proclamation to remove Tuanku Muhriz, with Maarof stating that all procedures had been fulfilled. Subsequently, Ismail issued a media statement stating that he signed it unwillingly and under duress, and that the document fails the requirements of Article 10 and is therefore invalid and unenforceable (Straits Times, 8 September 2026, Malay Mail, 9 September 2026).
Where it stands. Ismail has lodged two police reports, the Home Minister has confirmed them, and police have opened investigation papers (Malay Mail, 15 September 2026). Nine days after lodging that report, on 17 September, Ismail u-turned on his earlier statement and said he endorsed the EXCO statement of 16 September (FMT, 17 September 2026).
5. The “Undang” Media Statement (5 September 2026)
What happened. Six signatories called upon the State Secretary to give effect to the proclamation said to have been completed by the Menteri Besar’s signature on 3 August (see 5 September “Undang” Media Statement). The DKU subsequently said that four of the six did not hold the offices in whose names they acted (FMT, 14 September 2026).
Who used the word. This time, the DKU itself did. In the DKU Media Statement issued on 14 September 2026, The DKU said that signing the 5 September document using titles of offices that were not held and issuing directions to State Government officers under authority that was not lawfully possessed could be regarded as derhaka in the eyes of adat and the law.
Where it stands. The DKU directed its secretary to lodge a police report. The DKU also reaffirmed that there was no vacancy in the office of Yang di-Pertuan Besar and that State Government officers should continue to recognise and deal with Tuanku Muhriz in that capacity (Malay Mail, 14 September 2026).
6. The State Executive Council statement (16 September 2026)
What happened. On 16 September, an EXCO Media Statement was posted by 9 out of 10 EXCO members on their Facebook pages. This statement declared the 19 April proclamation valid and recognised Tunku Nadzaruddin as the new Yang di-Pertuan Besar. The following day, Ismail endorsed the statement. He said the proclamation had been discussed and unanimously accepted by the Executive Council at its meeting on 15 September and that the State Secretary had been instructed to proceed with the process of gazetting it (FMT, 17 September 2026, Malay Mail, 17 September 2026).
Who used the word. Several people and institutions responded in those terms.
Former Menteri Besar Datuk Seri Aminuddin Harun, who said the April proclamation had previously been presented to him and that he had declined to sign it, described the Executive Council’s conduct as derhaka and called for police action (FMT, 17 September 2026).
Seremban MP and DAP secretary-general Anthony Loke Siew Fook said Executive Council members who no longer recognised Tuanku Muhriz could be regarded as derhaka and should resign (Malaysiakini, 17 September 2026).
Messrs Halim & Ismail, acting for Raja Norazli and the DKU as defendants in Seremban High Court Originating Summons NA-24NCvC-240-05/2026, wrote to Ismail and his executive council members, the State Secretary and the State Legal Adviser. The letter said the announcement was intended to subvert Tuanku Muhriz’s executive authority and to remove him from the throne, and described the conduct as “tantamount to a coup d’état and an act of treason”, which it said should be punishable under the Penal Code. It also said the announcement breached the interim injunctions of 5 June, and that the DKU and its secretary intend to begin contempt proceedings against the recipients.
Where it stands. The DKU said the Executive Council had acted outside its jurisdiction and that its decision had no legal effect. It maintained that matters relating to Malay custom, including questions concerning the office of Yang di-Pertuan Besar, fell within the constitutional structure governing the DKU under Article 16 (DKU Media Statement, 17 September 2026).
The Attorney General’s Chambers separately said that the Menteri Besar and State Executive Council had no unilateral power to terminate or vacate the office of Yang di-Pertuan Besar. It said the validity and legal effect of the 19 April proclamation had to be determined through the constitutional and legal processes provided by the Negeri Sembilan Constitution, and that the Executive Council’s announcement had no legal effect (AGC Media Statement, Malay Mail, 17 September 2026, FMT, 17 September 2026).
Later that day, the State Secretary’s Office said that, after considering the AGC’s position and consulting the State Legal Adviser, it accepted that the Executive Council had no power under the Constitution to determine the removal of the Yang di-Pertuan Besar. It therefore would neither gazette nor implement the proclamation (State Secretary Media Statement, The Star, 17 September 2026, FMT, 18 September 2026).
What happens next
Allegations of derhaka have now been made repeatedly, police reports have been lodged and at least one investigation is under way. Yet, no criminal charges arising from the dispute have been brought.
That delay has consequences of its own. Until the authorities decide whether there is a case to prosecute, each side remains free to advance its version of events and accuse the other of derhaka, while the most serious question raised by those accusations remains unanswered: does any of this conduct amount to a criminal offence?
If conduct of this kind is ultimately found to amount a criminal offence, the speed and decisiveness of the institutional response will matter. A prolonged gap between serious allegations, police reports and legal resolution risks creating a precedent of its own: that competing claims to royal authority can be asserted, repeated and acted upon while the consequences remain uncertain.
For Negeri Sembilan, that would reach beyond the individuals involved in the present dispute. The constitutional and customary institutions depend on clarity over who may exercise their powers and how challenges to a Ruler are resolved. The same concern extends more broadly to Malaysia’s royal institutions. Where the boundaries protecting those institutions are invoked, they ultimately have to be defined and, where the law has been broken, enforced. Otherwise, each new dispute has more room to test them.
Read Next: Could the Undang’s Declaration Constitute Sedition?
Related Posts:
Sources:
Federal Court posthumously acquits Karpal Singh of sedition (Malay Mail, 29 March 2019)
Kedah MB Sanusi acquitted of sedition charges (The Star, 24 February 2025)
Four Undangs skip Negeri Sembilan assembly opening as royal row lingers (Malay Mail, 23 April 2026)
Negeri Sembilan assembly sitting adjourned after royal address (Malay Mail, 23 April 2026)
Why Negeri Sembilan is not in a constitutional crisis (FMT, 23 April 2026)
Suspended DKU secretary defends position in Negri customary law crisis (The Star, 4 June 2026)
Pemasyhuran Tunku Nadzaruddin sebagai Yang di-Pertuan Besar tidak sah (FMT, 9 June 2026)
Undang Yang Empat arah khutbah Jumaat doakan Tunku Nadzaruddin (Malaysiakini, 18 June 2026)
Khutbah Jumaat masjid Jelebu doakan ‘Yamtuan Besar’ Tunku Nadzaruddin (Malaysiakini, 19 June 2026)
Negeri Sembilan DKU granted leave to begin contempt proceedings against 6 (FMT, 8 July 2026)
Negeri Sembilan palace revokes two titles awarded to Rais Yatim (Malay Mail, 30 July 2026)
DKU NS arah setiausaha lapor polis desakan turunkan Yang di-Pertuan Besar (FMT, 14 September 2026)
Resolve proclamation issue in court if necessary, says Negeri Sembilan MB (FMT, 15 September 2026)
Tuanku Muhriz no longer Negeri Sembilan ruler, says state exco (FMT, 16 September 2026)
DAP cabar exco letak jawatan jika ‘derhaka’ pada Tuanku Muhriz (Malaysiakini, 17 September 2026)
Exco belia dan sukan N Sembilan tolak gesaan Loke letak jawatan (FMT, 17 September 2026)
Exco ‘decision’ has no legal effect, says Negeri Sembilan DKU (FMT, 17 September 2026)
Exco N Sembilan menderhaka, Aminuddin seru polis bertindak (FMT, 17 September 2026)
Exco statement on Negeri Sembilan ruler has no legal effect, says AGC (FMT, 17 September 2026)
Negeri Sembilan MB endorses exco statement on ruler (FMT, 17 September 2026)
Negri MB and exco to be sued for contempt (The Star, 18 September 2026)
Tuanku Muhriz’s ‘removal’ won’t be gazetted, says state secretary’s office (FMT, 18 September 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.
