What Offences Did The Undangs Accuse Tuanku Muhriz of?
In other words, why the silence on Tuanku Muhriz’s alleged misconduct says everything
If you have followed the Negeri Sembilan royal crisis closely, you will have noticed something extraordinary: 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.
Not in the Facebook Live declaration. Not in any subsequent press statement. Not in any interview. Not in any legal filing.
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 the Undang 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. No facts. No specifics. No evidence. No named witnesses. No 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?
Here is why the silence is not just politically suspicious, it is constitutionally fatal.
Senior constitutional lawyer Malik Imtiaz Sarwar, writing in Free Malaysia Today on 23 April 2026, identified the mandatory requirements of Article X 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.”
Former Court of Appeal judge Datuk Seri Mohd Hishamudin Yunus, himself an anak Negeri Sembilan, was equally clear in The Edge 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.”
Neither was anyone else. Because no one was told.
What Are the Possible Explanations for the Silence?
There are only three logical explanations for why the Undang 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 exists but is too weak to withstand public scrutiny. The allegations may amount to personal grievances, political disagreements, or disputes over privileges and benefits, the kind of thing that looks petty and self-serving when stated plainly. The Twitter claim that the Undang were pushing for more Datukship quotas and were refused fits this explanation. So does the mining company controversy involving the Undang of Jelebu. If the real reasons were this mundane, stating them publicly would have destroyed the Undang’s credibility instantly.
Explanation Three: There is no specific misconduct at all. The declaration was not about Tuanku Muhriz’s conduct. It was about the throne, specifically, returning it to the Ja’afar family after 18 years. The “misconduct” framing was the constitutional mechanism chosen to achieve this goal, not the genuine reason for it. This is the explanation most consistent with the timing. The declaration came just two days after Mubarak was stripped of his own position, suggesting retaliation rather than a principled constitutional act.
What Does Tuanku Muhriz’s Own Record Show?
The silence on his alleged misconduct becomes even more striking when set against his actual public record.
In January 2026 — just three months before the crisis, Tuanku Muhriz delivered a speech that Berita Harian reported under the headline: “Tuanku Muhriz disappointed there are parties giving support to individuals convicted of corruption.” He stated: “I am very shocked and disappointed when there are still parties who continue to give support to individuals convicted of very serious corruption charges, as if such actions can be accepted and forgiven.”
This is not the language of a ruler whose own conduct is indefensible. 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.
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.
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.”
Neither lawyer was able to identify a single specific offence alleged against Tuanku Muhriz — because none was ever stated.
What Does the Silence Tell Us?
In law, the burden of proof lies with those making the allegation. The Undang made an allegation of misconduct serious enough to justify removing a sitting constitutional ruler. They provided no evidence, no specifics, and no opportunity for the accused to respond.
In adat, the principle of muafakat, consensus built through open and honest deliberation, is foundational. A declaration made without stating the reasons is not muafakat. It is unilateral action dressed in the language of tradition.
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.”
Sometimes, what is not said tells you everything you need to know.
Related Posts
Sources:
Malik Imtiaz Sarwar, FMT, 23 April 2026: 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, 23 April 2026: https://theedgemalaysia.com/node/800970
Tuanku Muhriz anti-corruption speech: https://www.bharian.com.my/berita/nasional/2026/01/tuanku-muhriz-kecewa