What Is the Negeri Sembilan Royal Crisis and Why Does It Matter?
This is the story of what happened, who the key players are, and what the law actually says
Negeri Sembilan, Malaysia’s ninth state, is in the grip of an unprecedented constitutional dispute. In April 2026, four traditional chiefs, known as the Undang Yang Empat1, made a dramatic declaration attempting to remove the state’s ruler, Yang di-Pertuan Besar Tuanku Muhriz ibni Almarhum Tuanku Munawir, and install a replacement. The move sent shockwaves through Malaysia, prompting police warnings, a flood of legal opinions, and a deeply polarised public debate.
This is the story of what happened, who the key players are, and what the law actually says.
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 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 hereditary chiefs of Negeri Sembilan’s four territorial divisions (Luak). They are:
Datuk Mubarak bin Dohak — Previous Undang Luak Sungei Ujong (removed on 17 April 2026)
Datuk Maarof Mat Rashad — Undang Luak Jelebu
Datuk Muhammed Abdullah — Undang Luak Johol
Datuk Abdul Rahim Yasin — Undang Luak Rembau (installed September 2024)
Under Negeri Sembilan’s unique constitutional system, rooted in the Minangkabau-derived Adat Perpatih, the Undang Yang Empat hold the prerogative power to elect, and theoretically remove, the Yang di-Pertuan Besar.
Dato’ Seri Utama Aminuddin bin Harun is the Menteri Besar (Chief Minister) of Negeri Sembilan. He has firmly backed Tuanku Muhriz throughout this crisis.
Tunku Nadzaruddin ibni Almarhum Tuanku Ja’afar is the youngest son of the late Tuanku Ja’afar, and was named by the Undang as the proposed replacement for Tuanku Muhriz.
What makes Negeri Sembilan’s constitutional system unique?
In every other Malaysian state, succession is a family matter. A sultan dies, his son ascends. Power flows downward from the palace. The title is hereditary, the lineage is fixed, and the institution is, by design, insulated from broader challenge.
Negeri Sembilan is the only Malaysian state with a fully matrilineal (Adat Perpatih) royal system inherited from the Minangkabau people of West Sumatra, who migrated to the peninsula from the 15th century onwards.
Instead of the usual hereditary sultans in other states, Negeri Sembilan's ruler, known as the Yang di-Pertuan Besar, is chosen by four territorial chiefs known as the Undang, under adat perpatih, a Minangkabau-derived customary system unique in Malaysia. The ruler is elected, not inherited. And the men who do the electing are the Undang.
The Negeri Sembilan Constitution 1959 codifies these arrangements, creating a framework that balances royal authority with traditional checks.
What happened before April 19, 2026?
To understand the crisis, it is essential to understand what happened before the dramatic declaration of April 19.
The Removal of Mubarak Dohak
On 17 April 2026, the Dewan Keadilan dan Undang (DKU), the highest authority governing the four Undang, convened a special sitting at Istana Besar Seri Menanti at 10am. Tuanku Muhriz personally presided, invoking Article 24 of the Negeri Sembilan Constitution 1959.
At that sitting, the Ibu Soko Klana Hulu and Waris Klana Hulu were formally invited to attend, a procedurally significant step 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 advised 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.
Importantly, the removal was not a sudden decision. Official statements confirmed that the Telaga Undang and Waris Klana Hulu had actually decided to remove Mubarak as far back as 13 May 2025, nearly a year before the April 2026 DKU sitting. The DKU special sitting on 17 April 2026 merely advised and accepted that earlier adat decision. This is significant, it means the case against Mubarak had been building for almost a year before it became public.
The Declaration Removing Tunaku Muhriz as Yang di-Pertuan Besar
On 19 April 2026, just two days after Mubarak’s 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. No questions were taken. No specific misconduct against Tuanku Muhriz was named. No proclamation signed by the Menteri Besar was produced.
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 Datuk Syahbandar Sungei Ujong, Datuk Baharudin Abdul Khalid.
Critically, no specific misconduct was named against Tuanku Muhriz. The declaration cited only Article 10(1)(b) of the Negeri Sembilan Constitution as the constitutional basis.
The State Government’s Response Rejecting the Declaration
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 MB further stated that the action contravened Articles 10 to 12 of the Negeri Sembilan Constitution 1959.
This was not without precedent. The MB noted that the 14th Undang Luak Johol, Datuk Mohammad Jan Abdul Ghani, was similarly removed on 27 March 2016 on 13 offences relating to pesaka and adat.
What Happened Next: A Cascade of Counter-Claims
What followed the declaration was not a principled constitutional argument. It was a cascade of escalating counter-claims, each one more legally untenable than the last.
First, Mubarak’s camp argued that his removal was invalid because two of the Dato’-Dato’ Lembaga who participated in the DKU sitting had themselves been previously dismissed for misconduct. Therefore, they claimed, the DKU was not properly constituted, and everything that followed was void.
This argument collapses under scrutiny. The DKU sitting of 17 April was presided over by Tuanku Muhriz himself, invoking Article 24 of the Negeri Sembilan Constitution. The Ibu Soko Klana Hulu and Waris Klana Hulu were formally present. More fundamentally, Article 16 of the Negeri Sembilan Constitution explicitly states that DKU decisions “shall be final and shall not be challenged or called in question in any court on any ground.” The Undang cannot unilaterally declare a DKU decision invalid simply because they disagree with the outcome.
Second, the Undang’s camp called for the dismissal of Menteri Besar Aminuddin, claiming his role in the DKU sitting and his rejection of their declaration warranted his removal from office.
This claim has no constitutional basis whatsoever. The Menteri Besar is an elected official of the state government, appointed by the Yang di-Pertuan Besar on the advice of the state legislature. He is not subject to removal by the Undang Yang Empat. The Undang have no constitutional power over the office of the Menteri Besar.
And even if one accepts for the sake of argument that Mubarak’s removal was procedurally flawed, none of this gives him the right to sign a declaration two days later purporting to remove the ruler of the state. A person who believes they have been wrongly dismissed has legal remedies available. Declaring the ruler removed on Facebook Live is not one of them.
What this all means
Step back and look at the full picture.
Mubarak was removed for 33 violations of Adat and syariah, in a process that had been building for nearly a year, presided over by the ruler himself, with the Ibu Soko present, following the constitutional framework to the letter.
Two days later he signed a declaration purporting to remove that same ruler, without naming a single specific offence, without any constitutional process, without the Menteri Besar’s signature, and without the Ibu Soko’s mandate.
When the government rejected this, his camp claimed the people who removed him should themselves be removed. When the MB stood firm, they called for his dismissal too. When legal experts pointed out the declaration was constitutionally invalid, they insisted the experts were wrong.
The pattern is consistent: everyone who disagrees must be delegitimised, removed or declared invalid. The ruler. The DKU. The Dato’-Dato’ Lembaga. The Menteri Besar. The Ibu Soko. The legal community.
At some point, the more parsimonious explanation is not that every institution, official and legal expert in Negeri Sembilan is wrong. It is that the declaration itself was wrong from the beginning, and everything since has been an attempt to paper over that fundamental fact.
The football analogy is apt. A player shown a red card does not get to declare the referee fired, appoint a new referee, and continue playing. The game does not work that way. Neither does the Negeri Sembilan Constitution.
Read Next: How Does Negeri Sembilan’s Royal Succession System Work?
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:
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.
