What Misconduct Did The Undangs Accuse Tuanku Muhriz of?
Essentially, nothing. In other words, why the silence on Tuanku Muhriz’s alleged offences says everything.
If you have followed the Negeri Sembilan royal crisis closely, you will have noticed something extraordinary: Mubarak and the Undangs who declared Tuanku Muhriz removed as Yang di-Pertuan Besar on 19 April 2026 have never, not once, publicly stated what he actually did wrong.
In a crisis of this magnitude, that silence is not just notable. It is arguably the most important fact of the entire affair.
What did Mubarak and the three Undangs actually say?
When Mubarak bin Dohak and the three other Undang made their declaration at the Balai Undang Luak Sungei Ujong on the evening of 19 April 2026, they cited Article 10(1)(b) of the Negeri Sembilan Constitution 1959 as their constitutional basis.
Article 10(1)(b) covers conduct “detrimental to the sanctity, honour and dignity” of the position of Yang di-Pertuan Besar.
That is the entirety of what they said about Tuanku Muhriz's alleged misconduct. A constitutional provision, cited without any supporting facts, specifics, evidence, named witnesses, or documented incidents.
Reports at the time confirmed: “They claimed the decision was made due to alleged misconduct on the part of the state ruler. They did not elaborate.”
What does the constitution require?
Senior constitutional lawyer Malik Imtiaz Sarwar identified the mandatory requirements of Article X of the Negeri Sembilan Constitution 1959 clearly. Before the Undang can even call upon the Yang di-Pertuan Besar to withdraw or abdicate, they must conduct “a full and complete enquiry.” They must notify the ruler of “the specific allegations and their factual basis.” They must give him “a right to be heard” (Free Malaysia Today, 23 April 2026).
Former Court of Appeal judge Datuk Seri Mohd Hishamudin Yunus, himself an anak Negeri Sembilan, was equally clear on the same date: “I am not privy as to the nature of the allegations against His Highness; nor am I privy as to whether there has been a full and complete enquiry” (The Edge Malaysia, 23 April 2026).
Neither was anyone else. Because no one was told.
What were the 33 offences against Mubarak?
Before asking what Tuanku Muhriz allegedly did, it is worth examining what the removed Undang Mubarak was found to have done. On 17 April 2026, the Dewan Keadilan dan Undang (DKU) convened a special sitting at Istana Besar Seri Menanti and was presented with 33 offences against Mubarak relating to the customs and traditions of the Telaga Undang, Waris Klana Hulu and Luak Sungei Ujong.
The DKU acknowledged the Ibu Soko Klana Hulu's consensus on his removal, which had occurred under the custom of the Luak. Under Article 16(3) of the Negeri Sembilan Constitution 1959, DKU advice on such questions is final and cannot be challenged in any court. His removal was backdated to 13 May 2025, meaning he had not held any lawful authority for nearly a year before he signed and read the declaration against Tuanku Muhriz.
According to an official statement, all offences related to his removal were reported to the Negeri Sembilan Islamic Religious Affairs Department (JHEAINS) and the Royal Malaysia Police (PDRM) for further action, indicating the conduct in question was serious enough to attract both religious and criminal scrutiny.
The 33 offences against Mubarak stand in stark contrast to the zero specific allegations the Undang produced against Tuanku Muhriz.
What about the other Undangs?
The background of others who signed the 19 April declaration also warrants scrutiny.
The Undang of Jelebu, Datuk Maarof Mat Rashad, chairs Bright Star Logistic Sdn Bhd, a commercial interest he holds alongside his constitutional role as one of Negeri Sembilan’s four territorial chiefs.
The Undang of Johol, Datuk Muhammed Abdullah, was himself installed in 2016 as a replacement for his predecessor Datuk Mohd Jan Abdul Ghani, who was removed from the position over 13 allegations involving customs violations and wrongful conduct, meaning Johol’s seat has now seen two removals in a decade.
On 8 May 2026, even the Undang of Rembau's installation came under scrutiny when the Ibu Soko Tua of Luak Rembau publicly questioned the installation of YM Dato Shahbandar Abdul Rahim Yassin as the 22nd YTM Undang of Luak Rembau, alleging the process was procedurally invalid under the Adat rules of Luak Rembau.
These facts do not establish wrongdoing by those who signed the 19 April declaration. But they do raise a question worth asking: who are the men making conduct allegations against a sitting ruler, and what does their own record look like?
What are the possible explanations for the silence?
There are only three logical explanations for why the Mubarak and the Undangs refused to state publicly what Tuanku Muhriz allegedly did wrong.
Explanation One: The misconduct exists but is too sensitive to state publicly. This is the most charitable interpretation: that there is genuine wrongdoing that the Undang felt could not be aired in public without causing greater damage to the royal institution. However, this explanation collapses under scrutiny. If the misconduct was serious enough to justify removing a sitting ruler, it was serious enough to document in a formal enquiry, which Article X requires. And if a formal enquiry was conducted, its findings would need to be communicated to the ruler himself as part of his right to be heard. None of this happened.
Explanation Two: The misconduct allegations are too weak to withstand public scrutiny. Critics on social media have argued the Undang's stated grounds mask personal grievances rather than substantive misconduct on the part of Tuanku Muhriz. Posts on X claimed that Tuanku Muhriz had refused Undang demands for additional privileges including Datukship quotas (X, X, X, 20 April 2026). The mining and resources company directorships held by the Undang of Jelebu and the Undang of Johol are documented in public SSM records. Both raise the same question of whether the office of Undang is being used for commercial benefit. If the real reasons for the declaration were this self-serving, stating them publicly would damage the Undangs' credibility.
Explanation Three: There is no specific misconduct at all. The declaration came two days after Mubarak was stripped of his own position by the DKU. It named Tunku Nadzaruddin, son of the late Tuanku Ja'afar, as the proposed replacement, returning the throne to the Ja'afar family after 18 years. Was this a principled constitutional act, or a response to the events of 17 April? The Undang have not addressed this question publicly. Given the timing, the choice of successor, and the silence on Tuanku Muhriz's alleged conduct, this is the explanation that fits the available facts most closely.
What has Tuanku Muhriz done about corruption
In a step rare among Malaysian rulers, Tuanku Muhriz has revoked at least three datukships since 2020 from individuals associated with abuse of power or misconduct, each justified as preserving the dignity of the royal institution.
On 14 January 2026, three months before the crisis, Tuanku Muhriz delivered a royal address at his birthday investiture ceremony at Istana Besar Seri Menanti. Reported across The Star, New Straits Times, The Vibes and Berita Harian, the speech was a direct and unambiguous condemnation of corruption and those who protect the corrupt. He described corruption as “the foremost enemy of justice, trust and the nation's future.” He said he was “shocked and disheartened” that some in society continued to rally behind individuals convicted of serious graft offences, as if such acts were acceptable or forgivable. He called on all Malaysians to undertake self-reflection, warning that any tolerance of corruption “runs counter to truth, justice and trust, and is wholly unacceptable in a nation governed by the rule of law.”
This is the language of someone who believes deeply in accountability, and who is willing to say so publicly, even when it is politically uncomfortable.
Readers may draw their own conclusions about the relationship between that speech and what happened three months later.
What do legal experts conclude?
The conclusion from the legal community has been consistent and clear.
Malik Imtiaz Sarwar: “There is in reality no constitutional crisis in Negeri Sembilan.” The pre-conditions of Article X were simply not met (Free Malaysia Today, 23 April 2026).
Datuk Seri Mohd Hishamudin Yunus: The proclamation is invalid on three separate grounds, one of which is that “there had been no due process carried out” (The Edge Malaysia, 23 April 2026).
Two of Malaysia’s most senior legal voices agree: whatever the 19 April declaration was, it was not a constitutional removal under Article X of the Negeri Sembilan Constitution 1959.
What does the silence tell us?
Under the Negeri Sembilan constitution, under Article X(1), there are specific grounds required to remove a Yang di-Pertuan Besar. Mubarak and the Undangs named none of them.
In politics, when someone accuses another person of wrongdoing but refuses to say what that wrongdoing is, there is usually a reason, and that reason is rarely favourable to the accuser.
The silence on Tuanku Muhriz’s alleged misconduct has not established any wrongdoing. What it does prove, beyond any reasonable doubt, is that the constitutional process required to remove him was not followed. And without that process, the declaration is, in the words of a former Court of Appeal judge, “legally unenforceable.”
The silence is not just politically suspicious, it is constitutionally fatal.
Read Next: The Pantun That Was Used to Describe Tuanku Muhriz
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:
N Sembilan Tarik Balik Darjah Kebesaran Pengarah Urusan (Malaysiakini, 31 January 2020)
ADUN Jangan Amalkan Politik Dendam: Tuanku Muhriz (Utusan Malaysia, 9 October 2023)
Tuanku Muhriz Warns Against Normalising Corruption (The Star, 14 January 2026)
Tuanku Muhriz Revokes Ex-UKM Vice-Chancellor’s Datuk Title (Free Malaysia Today, 12 February 2025)
Negri Ruler Revokes UKM Chairman’s ‘Datuk’ Title (The Star, 30 October 2025)
Tuanku Muhriz Revokes Datukship of UKM’s Mohamad Razak (New Straits Times, 30 October 2025)
Who Are the Four Undang Embroiled in Negri Sembilan Royal Controversy? (The Star, 20 April 2026)
Questions Swirl Over Authority of Undang in State (The Star, 21 April 2026)
Tuanku Muhriz Tegur ‘Orang Berjawatan’ Jangan Ikut Nafsu, Emosi (Malaysiakini, 23 April 2026)
Negeri Sembilan Leaders Meet Amid Political Uncertainty (Free Malaysia Today, 29 April 2026)
Ibu Soko Tua Dakwa Ada Kecacatan Adat Dalam Pemilihan Undang Rembau (Negeri Kita, 8 May 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.
