Article 32 is the last article of the First Part of the Constitution. It carries the marginal note “Ancient constitution and ancient custom preserved”.
What the Article says
Except as expressed herein, this Part shall not affect the ancient constitution and ancient custom of the State of Negeri Sembilan but such ancient constitution and ancient custom, where not inconsistent with this Part, shall continue as heretofore.
Article 32 does two things:
The first is preservation. Except where the First Part provides otherwise, the ancient constitution and ancient custom of Negeri Sembilan are left unaffected by the written text and "continue as heretofore".
In practice, Article 32 is the general saving clause preserving Adat Perpatih and the customary ruling structure within the 1959 Constitution: the election of an Undang within his Luak, the roles of the Ibu Soko (senior matrilineal custodian), Buapak (clan head) and Lembaga (tribal chief), and much of the ceremonial order of the state belong to that older system. Elsewhere in the First Part, particular elements of that system are expressly incorporated into the written Constitution.
For example:
Article 7(2) provides for the customary election of the Yang di-Pertuan Besar by the four Undangs;
Article 14(1) expressly recognises the customary election of the Undangs, who must be “lawfully elected in accordance with the custom of their respective luaks”;
Article 14(3) expressly recognises an Undang “being removed from office in accordance with the custom of his luak”;
Article 16 sets out the DKU’s advisory role on questions of Malay custom.
The second is a limit. Ancient constitution and custom continue only “where not inconsistent with this Part”.
Those words establish the hierarchy. Custom survives, but subject to the written First Part. Where the two cannot be reconciled, the written constitutional provision governs.
What Article 32 does not say
Article 32 does not give Adat any power to displace the written Constitution, and the qualification sits inside the saving clause itself: “where not inconsistent with this Part”.
History shows why the distinction matters.
Writing in 1969, the scholar M.B. Hooker examined the Jelebu episode of 1957, when the Lembaga unanimously dismissed their Undang according to Adat, but the dismissal proved ineffective at state level because the government made no move to declare the office vacant (Journal of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, December 1969).
Hooker described a system in which customary validity and constitutional effect could fall out of step: an Undang might be validly dismissed under Adat while continuing to exercise the powers and functions of the office under the written Constitution.
The Federal Court described the constitutional relationship in the same terms in Dato Menteri Othman bin Baginda v Dato Ombi Syed Alwi bin Syed Idrus [1981] 1 MLJ 29, a dispute over the appointment of the Undang of Jelebu. Justice Salleh Abas described the State Constitution as recognising “the continued application of the ancient constitution and ancient custom of the State so long as they are not inconsistent with the State Constitution (Article 32)” (Malay Mail, 18 May 2026).
Why this matters in 2026
The relationship between Adat and the written Constitution has been at the centre of the courtroom this year.
When the removed Undang of Sungei Ujong, Mubarak Dohak, and his co-plaintiffs sought a stay of the 17 April removal and production of the DKU sitting’s minutes, counsel for the DKU cited Article 16(3) and argued the court had no jurisdiction over the matter; the Seremban High Court refused the stay and directed that the jurisdictional and justiciability questions be dealt with first (The Edge Malaysia, 13 May 2026).
The DKU’s 1 August statement recorded that its 31 July 2026 sitting, under the chairmanship of Yang di-Pertuan Besar Tuanku Muhriz, had been convened with full quorum. The council recognised the newly installed Undangs of Sungei Ujong and Rembau, accepted the customary dismissal of the Undang of Jelebu effective 31 May 2023, and declared the public announcement of 19 April 2026 unconstitutional (Malay Mail, 1 August 2026).
Together, these decisions show the two systems interacting in practice: questions of customary office dealt with through the DKU, and constitutional validity assessed against the written text. They illustrate the structure Article 32 describes: custom continuing within constitutional limits.
Summary
The paradox of the 2026 dispute is built into Article 32 itself: the clause that preserves the ancient constitution is also the clause that limits it. Custom continues, but only within the limits of the written First Part.
The Constitution numbers its Articles in Roman numerals. This publication uses Arabic numerals for readability.
Our posts referencing Article 32:
Sources:
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.
