• Legal experts say the Negeri Sembilan state government can still run normally, despite what appears to be a standoff by the state’s “Undangs” or traditional ruling chiefs against the state ruler.
• But an ex-judge said there might be difficulties in some situations, if the Undangs don’t work with the Negeri Sembilan ruler.
• For example, when the Yang di-Pertuan Besar decides on appointing a menteri besar or whether to dissolve the state assembly to pave the way for elections, the Undangs are required to be part of these decisions.

KUALA LUMPUR, May 6 — Legal experts say the Negeri Sembilan state government will be able to operate and function as usual, despite recent attempts by traditional ruling chiefs (Undangs) to remove the state ruler Tuanku Muhriz Tuanku Munawir and Menteri Besar Datuk Seri Aminuddin Harun.

Despite the Undangs’ current stand against both the state ruler and the Menteri Besar, former Court of Appeal judge Datuk Seri Mohd Hishamudin Md Yunus said this would not disrupt the state government’s affairs.

“The state administration can still run in the day-to-day running of government where it does not involve the Undangs.

“However, there could be difficulties in some areas of administration where they involve the Undangs,” he told Malay Mail.

He explained that this is because of the “unique” governance of Negeri Sembilan, where the Undangs have a role to play together with the Yang di-Pertuan Besar in certain situations.

“Unlike the Sultans of other States, in Negeri Sembilan the Yang di-Pertuan Besar is not the sole ruler of the State.

“In Negeri Sembilan, the Yang di-Pertuan Besar and the Undangs are, constitutionally, co-rulers of the State; meaning that in some instances, His Highness constitutionally cannot act alone,” he said.

He pointed to the Negeri Sembilan State Constitution’s Article XL(2), which lists when the Yang di-Pertuan Besar’s decisions would require the Undangs’ participation, including the appointment of a menteri besar and on whether to say no to a request to dissolve the state legislative assembly.

Hishamudin said that this means in these specific instances, “since His Highness has to make a decision jointly with the Undangs, there could be difficulties where the Undangs do not give their co-operation to His Highness”.

Hishamudin cited the example of the State constitution’s Article XXVIII(2) or 28(2), which says the word “Ruler” in Article XL(2) or 40(2) would mean a combination of the Yang di-Pertuan Besar “and at least three of the four Undangs” or at least two of the Undangs (if there are only three Undangs in office at that time).

“This means the expression ‘Ruler’ means not just the Yang di-Pertuan Besar; it refers to His Highness plus the Undangs (either three Undangs or two Undangs as the case may be),” he said.

Constitutional lawyer Datuk Malik Imtiaz Sarwar said the state government can continue to run normally now, as Datuk Mubarak Dohak is said to have been removed as an Undang on April 17 during the “Dewan Keadilan dan Undang” meeting.

“Until and unless Datuk Mubarak proves the contrary (i.e. that he was not removed, as the Undangs suggest), the status quo remains. I understand the Undangs have requested the minutes of the proceedings of the Dewan on 17th April,” he told Malay Mail.

Mubarak was one of the four Undangs who had on April 19 declared the purported sacking of Tuanku Muhriz as Yang di-Pertuan Besar, but his status as an Undang has been disputed. 

Imtiaz had previously told Malay Mail that the Undangs’ April 19 declaration to remove Tuanku Muhriz would be invalid, if Mubarak had participated in the Undangs’ decision despite having already lost his Undang position.

On April 20, the Menteri Besar said the state government cannot accept and does not recognise Mubarak’s declaration to remove the state ruler, as Mubarak is no longer an Undang and as the State Constitution had not been followed.

On the same day, Mubarak and the other Undangs issued a letter to say that the menteri besar should be changed.

But Hishamudin said “the Undangs’ call for the removal of the Menteri Besar has no legal effect.” 

“Legally, the Undangs have no power to remove the Menteri Besar. The Menteri Besar could only be removed via the process as prescribed by the State Constitution,” he said, having previously said that a vote in the state legislative assembly (DUN) is the only way to decide if a menteri besar has lost majority support.

Former judge Datuk Seri Mohd Hishamudin Md Yunus said the removal of Datuk Mubarak Dohak as an Undang should be considered valid. — Picture by Raymond Manuel

Can the Negeri Sembilan disputes be resolved in court? 

1. Can the validity of Mubarak’s removal as an Undang be determined in court? 

While the Negeri Sembilan state government views Mubarak to no longer be an Undang, he and the other Undangs are disputing this.

Citing the State Constitution’s Article XVI, Hishamudin said whether the dispute on the validity of Mubarak’s removal can be litigated in court is a “debatable legal point”.

Under Article XVI(3), the Dewan Keadilan dan Undangs’ (DKU) advice including on the removal of an Undang “shall be final and shall not be challenged or called in question in any court on any ground”.

Hishamudin said this phrase “shall be final and shall not be challenged or called in question in any court on any ground” is an “ouster clause”, which suggests that the matter is “non-justiciable” or cannot be brought to court.

But he also said there is another school of thought, which takes the position that ouster clauses can never take away the courts’ power of judicial review or power to decide on such cases.

Explaining this school of thought, Hishamudin said the courts’ judicial review power is viewed as “one of the basic structures of the Federal Constitution that can never ever be taken away by the Federal Constitution or State Constitution”. 

“In short, the dispute could be brought and litigated in court,” he said, also supporting this view.

But as of now, the removal of Mubarak as an Undang should be considered valid, he said.

Assuming that Mubarak disputes his dismissal and intends to bring the matter to court, and until the matter is brought to court and if the courts were to rule that Mubarak’s removal by the DKU is valid — “until that happens, the advice of the Dewan Keadilan dan Undang regarding Datuk Mubarak’s removal must be taken to be valid and must be enforced by the state authority”, Hishamudin said.

Imtiaz said it could be argued that Mubarak’s removal as Undang is not something that the courts can decide on: “If the Dewan had removed Datuk Mubarak, it is open to argument that this decision is not justiciable as it is a matter falling within the prerogatives of the Ruling Chiefs.”

2. Can it be determined in court if the bid to remove Tuanku Muhriz as Yang di-Pertuan Besar was valid?

Imtiaz cited a previous High Court decision in 2010 when the current Kelantan regent, Tengku Muhammad Fakhry Petra, had challenged his 2009 removal from the state’s succession council through a judicial review bid. The court had said this was “non-justiciable”.

Lawyer Datuk Malik Imtiaz Sarwar said the status quo in the Negeri Sembilan administration remains now, unless Datuk Mubarak Dohak is able to prove that he is still an Undang. — Picture by Azinuddin Ghazali

But Imtiaz indicated that the courts should still be able to review how the Undangs made their decision to remove the Negeri Sembilan ruler, especially when the State Constitution’s Article X states the process that should be followed.

“While it may be argued that a decision of the Undangs relating to succession is not justiciable, this should not preclude judicial review of the process by which that determination is made, more so for that process (Article X) being provided by law (Article X),” he said.

Imtiaz and Hishamudin had said a Negeri Sembilan ruler can only be validly removed if these two requirements in Article X are fulfilled: 

• the Undangs must carry out a “full and complete enquiry” with the Yang di-Pertuan Besar given the right to an impartial hearing; 
• and a written “proclamation” signed by the Undangs and Menteri Besar on the ruler’s removal. 

Hishamudin noted that Article X does not have an ouster clause, which can be interpreted to mean that the dispute on Tuanku Muhriz’s purported removal can be taken to court.

But even if it could be taken to court, Hishamudin said there is no need for Tuanku Muhriz or the Negeri Sembilan state government to do so, as the ruler’s removal is invalid.

He pointed out that there is a “latent” defect or obvious fundamental defect in the Undangs’ proclamation, as it was not signed by the Menteri Besar.

“As such, as a matter of law, the Undangs’ ‘proclamation’ could just be ignored by His Highness and the State authority. It has no validity whatsoever,” he said.

He said the latent defect in the Undangs’ declaration to remove Tuanku Muhriz would be even more so if they had not carried out a “full and complete enquiry” — such as giving the state ruler a chance to call in witnesses and to respond to the allegations against him in a full and formal hearing.

“The question of taking the Undangs to court, from the standpoint of His Highness or the State Government, therefore, does not arise. In other words, the legal position of the Yang di-Pertuan Besar remains intact.”

While saying the Undangs do have the option to go to court to challenge the Menteri Besar’s refusal to sign their “proclamation”, Hishamudin said he seriously doubts that the Undangs have a plausible reason to challenge the refusal, based on all his explanations.

“Having said the above, I respectfully and earnestly urge all parties to endeavour to arrive at an amicable settlement rather than resorting to the courts, for the sake of good governance in the administration of the State,” he concluded.

In the Kelantan case, the High Court had said the issue of succession is non-justiciable, and that the courts would be “ill-suited” to decide the dispute on the facts in that particular case.

Former Court of Appeal judge Tan Sri Mohamad Ariff Md Yusof, who was the High Court judge in the Kelantan succession case in 2010, told Malay Mail: “As the law stands now, issues of royal succession and therefore appointment and removal of rulers, are non-justiciable.

Citing the Kelantan case, Ariff said he believes that the issue of the validity of an Undang’s removal should also not be for the courts to decide on: “However, this was taken at the highest level of rulership. Whether the removal of an Undang can be challenged in court might be another matter, although I incline to believe it should fall within the same category.”

Yesterday, Muhammad Faris Johari was reportedly appointed as the new Undang of Sungai Ujong, the position previously held by Mubarak.

• The four “Undangs” or ruling chiefs of Negeri Sembilan have to follow the procedures in the state’s Constitution, legal experts said.
• Based on the Negeri Sembilan State Constitution, the Undangs’ recent attempt to “sack” Tuanku Muhriz Tuanku Munawir as Negeri Sembilan’s Yang di-Pertuan Besar is invalid.
• This is because procedures in the State Constitution were not followed, constitutional experts said.

KUALA LUMPUR, May 5 — Over the past few weeks, Negeri Sembilan was rocked by an attempt by four traditional ruling chiefs (“Undangs”) to remove the state ruler Tuanku Muhriz Tuanku Munawir.

But legal and constitutional experts have said that this attempted removal of Tuanku Muhriz is invalid, and that he is legally still the ruler of Negeri Sembilan.

Here are six things you need to know:

1.    Firstly, who are the Undangs and what role do they play?

Based on the Adat Perpatih or custom practised in Negeri Sembilan, there are four Undangs or ruling chiefs for four traditional territories (Sungai Ujong, Rembau, Jelebu, Johol).

Under Negeri Sembilan’s written State Constitution, the Undangs’ roles include electing the Yang di-Pertuan Besar, and being able to call for him to temporarily withdraw or permanently give up his position.

The Yang di-Pertuan Besar is Negeri Sembilan’s ruler, and this position is equivalent to that of the Sultans of other states.

When asked by Malay Mail, both former Court of Appeal judge Datuk Seri Mohd Hishamudin Md Yunus and constitutional lawyer Datuk Malik Imtiaz Sarwar confirmed this:

• The Undangs have to carry out their roles and functions according to the Negeri Sembilan State Constitution.
• The Undangs have to act according to the procedures in the State Constitution.

In summarising the entire situation in Negeri Sembilan, former Court of Appeal judge Tan Sri Mohamad Ariff Md Yusof said the Negeri Sembilan state constitution must be followed, as the provisions inside are not just “formalities” but would ultimately determine what is legal and valid. 

“The current controversies are not merely a matter of adat, but involves interpretations of constitutional provisions in the State Constitution, some expressly stated,” he told Malay Mail, adding that he based his views regarding this issue on accepted principles of constitutional interpretation. 

“Where words in the Constitution are clear, they must be given effect to promote the intention behind these words.

“It is not a question of mere formality to be ignored, but one of legality and ultimately validity,” said Ariff, who is also a former Dewan Rakyat Speaker.

2.    How did the Undangs try to ‘sack’ Tuanku Muhriz? 

On April 17, the Negeri Sembilan menteri besar announced that Datuk Mubarak Dohak was no longer the Undang of Sungai Ujong, based on a meeting by the “Dewan Keadilan dan Undang” (“The Council of the Yang di-Pertuan Besar and the Ruling Chiefs”) where the Yang di-Pertuan Besar was present and led.

Just two days later, Mubarak and three Undangs declared — in a video streamed “live” on Facebook — that Tuanku Muhriz was purportedly “sacked” or deposed, and also named a new ruler.

But Hishamudin said Tuanku Muhriz remains the Negeri Sembilan ruler: “The declaration was not valid. The declaration, since it was not valid, has no effect on the position of His Highness. In other words, His Highness is still the Yang di-Pertuan Besar.”

3.    What does the law say about the procedure to remove a Negeri Sembilan ruler?

Based on the State Constitution’s Article X, the Undangs can ask the Negeri Sembilan ruler to temporarily withdraw or permanently give up his position and powers — but only if one of four conditions have been met.

And how will the Undangs decide if any of these four conditions are met? 

There must be a “full and complete enquiry”.

Hishamudin said the Undangs’ April 19 move to attempt to remove the Yang di-Pertuan Besar under Article X is “unprecedented” in the state’s centuries-old history.

“It has never happened before in the history of Negeri Sembilan, ever since the installation at Penajis, Rembau, in 1773 by the Undangs of the invited Minangkabau Prince, Raja Melewar, from the Pagaruyung kingdom, as the first Yang di-Pertuan Besar.”

4. What should a “full and complete enquiry” look like?

Imtiaz said that there are no court decisions on how Article X should be interpreted, including what a “full and complete enquiry” covers.

“However, it stands to reason that the enquiry must be one which is carried out in a manner which entails the Ruler being given a right to be heard and the Undangs having considered all relevant matters.”

Pointing out the seriousness of removing the Negeri Sembilan ruler as it would involve a loss of powers and affect his reputation, Imtiaz said a ruler should have a chance to answer allegations against him in a hearing before an impartial panel. 

“A determination that the Ruler is to be removed on grounds of an alleged defect would self-evidently deprive the Ruler of vested powers and privileges, as well as have a bearing on his reputation, and he would thus be entitled to a determination which accords with law and the rules of natural justice i.e. a right to be heard before an impartial tribunal,” he said.

Imtiaz pointed out that the Federal Constitution’s Article 8(1), which guarantees the right to equal protection of the law and equality before the law, “applies to all persons”. 

Constitutional lawyer Datuk Malik Imtiaz Sarwar said a ‘full and complete enquiry’ should mean an impartial hearing for a Negeri Sembilan ruler.—Picture by Shafwan Zaidon

Based on practices of the courts and tribunals, Hishamudin said the words “full and complete” enquiry on such a grave matter as the removal of the Yang di-Pertuan Besar can only mean this: “There must be a proper formal inquiry that complies with the necessary procedure to ensure that justice is not only done, but must be seen to be done. 

“The rules of natural justice must be strictly adhered to. This means that any Undang that has an interest in the case must recuse himself,” he said.

Hishamudin said “it is obvious” that Mubarak should have recused himself from participating in the Undangs’ decision-making process to remove the Negeri Sembilan ruler.

This is because Mubarak’s May 13, 2025 removal as Undang by the Sungai Ujong adat authority had subsequently been confirmed via an April 17 advice of the Dewan Keadilan and Undang presided by the Yang di-Pertuan Besar.

“Datuk Mubarak is disputing his removal. That makes him a person having an interest in the Undangs’ decision against His Highness. It is a basic principle of law that no man shall be a judge of his own cause.

“Further, the Undangs conducting the inquiry must ensure that the complaints or allegations against His Highness are not frivolous,” he said.

Hishamudin added that the allegations or complaints to be considered by the Undangs in the enquiry must only be on the four matters specifically listed in Article X(1).

Hishamudin, however, also said there has been no news reports on what are the allegations against the Yang di-Pertuan Besar, or whether the Undangs had ever carried out any enquiry.

Based on basic principles of administrative law and similar procedures by tribunals in the process to remove persons in high places, Hishamudin also explained the process that should be present in a “full and complete enquiry” by the Undangs:

“For the purpose of the enquiry, the relevant witnesses relied upon by the Undangs must be called and carefully examined to ensure their credibility. The relevant incriminating documents (if any) must be carefully scrutinised as to their authenticity and contents. 

“The rule of natural justice must be observed. This means that His Highness should be given an opportunity to appear at the inquiry; to know what are the charges against him, to cross examine the witnesses and to inspect the documents (if any). His Highness should have the right to engage a counsel and to reply to all the allegations, including the calling of witness to testify on his behalf,” he said.

Previously, Ariff said the Menteri Besar’s position of not recognising the Undangs’ “declaration” to remove Tuanku Muhriz is “constitutionally and legally correct”, as the constitutional requirements under Article X(1) — including to have a full and complete enquiry — appear to have been ignored.

Former Court of Appeal judge Datuk Seri Mohd Hishamudin Md Yunus said the failure to have a valid written joint proclamation by the Undangs and Menteri Besar would make the removal of a ruler invalid. ‘Under the hands’ typically means a document needs to be signed. — Picture by Yusof Mat Isa

5.    What is this requirement for a “proclamation” by the Undangs and MB?

Under the Negeri Sembilan State Constitution’s Article X, a “proclamation” has to be issued “under the hands of the Undangs and the Menteri Besar” on the temporary withdrawal from duties or abdication of the Yang di-Pertuan Besar.

Hishamudin said this would “obviously” need to be a written proclamation and that “it must be gazetted for public information”.

“No, it is not just a formality. The Proclamation is an important piece of instrument. Without a Proclamation signed by the Yang Teramat Mulia (YTM) Undangs and the Hon. Menteri Besar, any decision made by the YTM Undangs pursuant to Article X(1) has no force of law,” he said when explaining how this would result in any move to remove a ruler having no legal effect.

Imtiaz also said such a proclamation “must be in writing”, highlighting that this would ensure the power to remove a ruler is exercised properly as the menteri besar would not be involved in the enquiry of the ruler.

“I do not think this requirement can be dismissed as a mere formality. The requirement that it be under the hands of the Undangs and the MB (who is not part of the tribunal) points to this being a part of the checks and balances under Article X to ensure that the power is invoked properly and for proper purpose,” he said.

6.    No ‘full and complete enquiry’, no valid ‘proclamation’ = Ruler’s removal is invalid 

Asked whether the Undangs’ declaration to remove Tuanku Muhriz was valid, Imtiaz said this would depend on whether Mubarak was removed as an Undang, as there could not have been a valid enquiry if he was no longer an Undang.

“If Datuk Mubarak participated notwithstanding his removal (assuming this to be the case), then the enquiry and the decision reached would not have been valid as, in effect, a non-undang was involved. As I recall, his statement on 19th April implied that he had been involved,” he said.

If the process and decision to remove Tuanku Muhriz were not valid, then the remaining three Undangs can carry out a fresh enquiry, he said.

But if Mubarak had not been removed, then the validity of the bid to remove the Negeri Sembilan ruler would depend on whether Article X had been complied with, Imtiaz said.

The Undangs’ declaration to remove Tuanku Muhriz would be invalid regardless of Mubarak’s status, if there was no “full and complete enquiry” and if there was no valid “proclamation”, Hishamudin said.

“The absence of the two points alone would be enough to make the purported ‘proclamation’ by the Undangs on 19 April 2026 invalid, without the need to take into account the status of YTM Datuk Mubarak,” he said.

Assuming that Mubarak had been validly removed, “that would be an added reason as to why the Undangs’ ‘proclamation’ was invalid”, the ex-judge added.