THE four Negeri Sembilan Undangs, including three whose positions are disputed, have told Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim and the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) to ‘stay out’ of the state’s royal affairs.
Yet their demand raises a fundamental question: how can the federal government and its top legal authority simply be expected to stay out when the dispute itself centres on whether the purported removal of Tuanku Muhriz Tuanku Munawir complied with the state Constitution?
The AGC has already stepped into the dispute, saying the proclamation purporting to remove Tuanku Muhriz was invalid and that the constitutional process had not been followed.
At a press conference in Seremban today, the group insisted that the authority to appoint and remove the Yang di-Pertuan Besar rests solely with the Undang Yang Empat.
They cited Articles 10 and 11 of the Negeri Sembilan Constitution 1959 and warned Anwar against using federal agencies in a way that could disrupt the state administration.
“Do not overstep your bounds or intrude where you are not wanted. Do not sow disorder in our state using federal government agencies to paralyse the state government,” they said.
They also claimed that any action by the prime minister that breached the state’s constitutional prerogatives could amount to a breach of his oath of office under the Sixth Schedule of the Federal Constitution, as well as Articles 71(1) and (2) and the principle of federalism.
But the AGC’s position is that the question is not simply whether the Undangs have the power to remove the ruler, but whether that power was exercised in accordance with the Constitution.
On Sept 17, the AGC said the April 19 proclamation purporting to remove Tuanku Muhriz was invalid because the requirements under Article 10 had not been met.
It said the Undangs had the power to remove the Yang di-Pertuan Besar, but that the power was subject to the procedures and grounds set out in the state Constitution.
The AGC also said the Menteri Besar and state executive council had no unilateral authority to remove the ruler.
The Undangs, however, maintained that Menteri Besar Datuk Ismail Lasim and the exco had merely carried out their constitutional duty by giving effect to their decision under Article 10.
They rejected claims that Ismail and the exco had themselves removed Tuanku Muhriz, describing the allegation as “malicious slander” driven by the interests of certain groups.
The group also warned political parties against “fishing in muddied waters” and twisting facts about the state government and Negeri Sembilan adat.
“No political party has the power to remove any ruler,” they said, insisting that the authority belonged to the Undang Yang Empat.
The statement was issued by Johol Undang Datuk Muhammed Abdullah, together with Datuk Mubarak Dohak, Datuk Maarof Mat Rashad and Datuk Abdul Rahim Yasin, whose positions as the Undangs of Sungai Ujong, Jelebu and Rembau respectively are disputed.
Tunku Besar Tampin Tunku Syed Razman Syed Idrus Al-Qadri was also a signatory.
They said the authority to choose and remove the Yang di-Pertuan Besar was a customary prerogative practised for more than 500 years and reflected in Articles 7, 10 and 11 of the state Constitution.
“Only the jeweller knows the gem,” they said.
The dispute escalated after the state exco on Sept 16 affirmed that Tuanku Muhriz had been removed on April 19 and that Tunku Nadzaruddin Tuanku Ja’afar was the new Yang di-Pertuan Besar. Ismail endorsed the decision the following day.
The state’s Dewan Keadilan dan Undang subsequently rejected the move and maintained that Tuanku Muhriz remained the legitimate ruler.
The AGC also rejected the proclamation and the subsequent exco announcement affirming it.
Tuanku Muhriz later revoked the appointments of all 10 state executive councillors on Sept 20, citing breaches of their oaths of office. The revocation was subsequently gazetted.
The latest statement leaves the central constitutional question unresolved — whether the Undangs’ authority to remove the ruler can be exercised in the manner they have asserted, or whether the constitutional requirements cited by the AGC must first be met. - September 25, 2026
