The Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC) has confirmed that the Mentri Besar and State Executive Council of Negri Sembilan do not hold the authority to remove or declare vacant the position of the Yang di-Pertuan Besar, describing any such attempt as unconstitutional. The statement follows a controversial proclamation dated April 19, 2026, which sought to depose Yang di-Pertuan Besar Tuanku Muhriz Tuanku Munawir and install Tuanku Nadzaruddin Tuanku Ja’afar in his place.
According to the AGC, the April proclamation failed to meet the procedural and substantive requirements outlined in Article 10 of the Laws of the Constitution of Negri Sembilan 1959 (UUTKNS 1959). There was no evidence demonstrating that Tuanku Muhriz met any disqualifying criteria specified under Article 10(1). While the Undang Yang Empat—the traditional chiefs responsible for upholding the state's adat (customary laws)—have the power to remove the Ruler, the constitution mandates strict adherence to due process before such a decision can be validly made.
The AGC also questioned the legitimacy of some of the Undang who signed the proclamation, noting that certain signatories had reportedly been removed from office according to customary procedures in their respective Luaks (districts), rendering the composition of the Undang at the time incomplete. As a result, announcements by members of the Negri Sembilan State Executive Council based on the proclamation were declared legally ineffective.
In a statement, the AGC urged all parties to respect judicial proceedings and allowed the matter to be resolved in an orderly fashion, warning that attempts to implement or gazette the proclamation would constitute unlawful acts.
Legal experts echoed the AGC’s position, emphasizing that the removal of the Yang di-Pertuan Besar remains the sole prerogative of the Undang Yang Empat and must comply with constitutional mandates. Professor Emeritus Datuk Dr Shad Saleem Faruqi pointed out that the presence of Sungai Ujong Undang Datuk Seri Mubarak Dohak—who had been previously removed from office—during the decision undermined the validity of the April 19 proclamation. He noted that only three duly qualified Undang were required for a lawful decision, and the inclusion of an ineligible signatory rendered the process ultra vires and in violation of principles of natural justice.
Shad Saleem further highlighted that no explicit grounds for the removal of Tuanku Muhriz had been provided, such as mental incapacity, misconduct against Shariah law, or prosecution for a crime, all of which are conditions referenced under the constitution. He also questioned Mentri Besar Datuk Ismail Lasim’s claim that his endorsement of the proclamation on August 3 came under duress, calling into question the procedural integrity of the announcement made this month recognizing Tuanku Nadzaruddin as Ruler.
Senior lawyer Andrew Khoo underscored that the authority to determine the status of the Yang di-Pertuan Besar rests exclusively with the Undang Yang Empat, with the State Executive Council lacking constitutional jurisdiction in this matter. He cited a July 31, 2026 declaration by the Dewan Keadilan dan Undang (DKU), affirming that the April proclamation was unconstitutional and void.
Law lecturer Dr Muhammad Fathi Yusof advised that the focus now should be on resolving the constitutional and administrative impasse. He explained that Article 10 governs termination of the Yang di-Pertuan Besar’s position, while Article 11 governs the selection of successors, emphasizing that the Executive Council cannot usurp these functions. The ultimate question remains whether the Undang fulfilled the necessary constitutional procedures in exercising their powers.
The dispute has thus underscored the complexities of negating a traditional and constitutional office through internal political maneuvers, reinforcing the primacy of established legal and customary frameworks in resolving issues related to royal succession in Negri Sembilan.