What Was the Role of Former Menteri Besar Tan Sri Rais Yatim and Legal Experts?
What Did Former Menteri Besar Tan Sri Rais Yatim Say?
Tan Sri Rais Yatim, who served as Menteri Besar of Negeri Sembilan from 1978 to 1982 — his entire term falling within the reign of Tuanku Ja’afar — has publicly stated that the Undang Yang Empat’s action was constitutionally legitimate. He argued that if the Undang withdraw support over wrongdoing that damages the dignity of the position, the Yang di-Pertuan Besar can be removed.
It is worth noting the lineage dimension here. The proclamation of April 19 did not merely seek to depose Tuanku Muhriz — it sought to install Tunku Nadzaruddin, the third son of the late Tuanku Ja’afar, in his place. The current dispute is, in part, a contest between two royal lines: the Munawir line (Tuanku Muhriz’s father, who ruled 1960–67) and the Ja’afar line (which held the throne from 1967 to 2008). Readers can decide for themselves what weight to give Rais’s particular path through that history.
Rais has also stated that Mubarak’s removal via the DKU on April 17 was invalid — effectively arguing that the action against Tuanku Muhriz was procedurally legitimate, while the action that would have prevented it was not. Both decisions were taken by Negeri Sembilan’s traditional adat institutions. Accepting the validity of one while rejecting the other is a position that requires more explanation than has so far been offered. He has called for an amicable resolution.What Did the Legal Community Say?
What Did the Legal Community Say?
The weight of serious legal opinion has lined up firmly against the validity of the Undang's declaration.
Datuk Seri Mohd Hishamudin Yunus, a former Court of Appeal judge writing in The Edge on 23 April 2026, identified three grounds of invalidity: the absence of due process accorded to the Yang di-Pertuan Besar, the participation of a biased party, and the missing signature of the Menteri Besar required by Article X. His conclusion was that the proclamation is legally unenforceable.
Malik Imtiaz Sarwar, a senior constitutional lawyer writing in FMT on the same day, walked through the Article X pre-conditions in detail and concluded that none of them had been satisfied. The Ruler had not been put on notice of any specific defect, had been afforded no opportunity to be heard, and no proclamation bearing the signatures of the Undang and the Menteri Besar had been produced. His bottom line, given that the DKU had already acted and the Menteri Besar had confirmed Mubarak’s removal, was striking in its simplicity: “There is in reality no constitutional crisis in Negeri Sembilan.”
A separate opinion piece in The Vibes on 23 April 2026 framed the dispute in less technical terms: “There is nothing traditional about prioritising board seats, land premiums and state-linked perks over the welfare of the people… Greed dressed up in ceremonial finery.”
Three different vantage points — a former appellate judge, a senior constitutional lawyer, and an editorial column — converge on the same point. The Undang’s procedural defence does not hold, and the substance behind it is open to serious question
Sources:
On Rais Yatim’s statement: https://www.malaysiakini.com/news/773373
Malik Imtiaz Sarwar, FMT: https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/opinion/2026/04/23/why-negeri-sembilan-is-not-in-a-constitutional-crisis
Datuk Seri Mohd Hishamudin Yunus, The Edge: https://theedgemalaysia.com/node/800970
The Vibes opinion piece: https://www.thevibes.com/articles/opinion/122189/is-negeri-sembilans-future-being-held-hostage
The Vibes profile of Tuanku Muhriz: https://www.thevibes.com/articles/news/122155/steady-in-the-storm-tuanku-muhriz-and-a-test-of-negeri-sembilans-royal-order