MB’s U-turn on Tuanku Muhriz’s ‘removal’ may prove pivotal, says lawyer

Negeri Sembilan menteri besar Ismail Lasim’s about-turn on a disputed proclamation could become a central issue if the matter goes to court, with a senior lawyer warning it may undermine the validity of the Yang Dipertuan Besar’s removal from office.

Rosli Dahlan noted that Ismail had on Sept 9 claimed to have signed a proclamation removing Tuanku Muhriz Tuanku Munawir as ruler “against his will and under duress”.

At the time, Ismail said the document did not comply with Article 10 of the Negeri Sembilan Constitution 1959, and was therefore “invalid, unconstitutional and unenforceable.”

However, on Sept 17, Ismail announced that the state executive council had unanimously endorsed the proclamation, affirming Tuanku Muhriz’s removal and directing the state secretary to gazette it.

Rosli said the menteri besar’s contradictory positions could be significant if the matter came up before the courts.

“His changing position on Tuanku Muhriz’s removal, coupled with his earlier police report claiming he was forced to sign the proclamation, will have to be assessed by the court when considering his credibility as a witness,” he said.

Rosli also questioned whether the state government could breathe life into a proclamation that was invalid at the time it was made.

“If the proclamation was defective, invalid and of no effect, can the menteri besar or exco endorse it,” he asked.

The lawyer also questioned whether the menteri besar and his exco could properly exercise their authority, given their appointments were made by Tuanku Muhriz, whose legitimacy as ruler they were disputing.

“If the appointments of the menteri besar and exco themselves were affected by the alleged change in the office of the Yang Dipertuan Besar, could they then rely on their own authority to ratify the proclamation,” he asked.

Crisis timeline

The constitutional crisis erupted on April 19, when Mubarak Dohak, claiming to act as the Undang of Sungei Ujong, read a proclamation purportedly signed by the state’s four Undangs, removing Tuanku Muhriz from office.

One day later, then menteri besar Aminuddin Harun rejected the proclamation, saying he had refused to co-sign the document on grounds that it was “defective and unconstitutional”.

In August, following the Negeri Sembilan state election, Ismail was sworn in as menteri besar by Tuanku Muhriz, who also appointed 10 exco members to hold office “at the ruler’s pleasure”, as provided under Article 38(5) of the constitution.

On Sept 9, Ismail himself disavowed the April 19 proclamation but reversed course eight days later and affirmed its validity.

Mubarak’s legitimacy, new Undangs’ appointment

One of the key disputes that arose in April was whether Mubarak was entitled to sign the proclamation, with the state’s Dewan Keadilan dan Undang (DKU) claiming he had been removed from office two days earlier.

“If Mubarak was no longer a legitimate Undang on April 17, there may not have been a proper quorum for the April 19 meeting,” said Rosli.

He said Article 16(3) provides that the DKU’s advice on matters within its jurisdiction—including the selection, appointment and removal of an Undang—was final and cannot be challenged in court.

Rosli said the subsequent appointments of new Undangs also raised questions about the legitimacy of the proclamation.

“When the MB and the exco endorsed the proclamation on Sept 17, the Undangs of Sungai Ujong and Rembau were no longer the same.

“This raises a further question of whether the current MB and exco can make a retrospective endorsement,” he said.

According to Rosli, acts of law generally operate prospectively, not retrospectively.

“Assuming the endorsement operates prospectively and takes effect only on Sept 17, the proclamation of removal would again be open to challenge as the current Undangs of Sungei Ujong and Rembau have denounced it,” he explained.

AGC weighs in

The issue took yet another turn last week after the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) said the April 19 proclamation was invalid, citing non-compliance with the mandatory requirements under Article 10.

In its statement, the AGC said there was no evidence that Tuanku Muhriz was disqualified under the grounds specified in Article 10(1). It also affirmed the DKU’s exclusive jurisdiction as regards matters concerning the removal of an Undang.

In line with the AGC’s position, the state secretary’s office said it would not take any steps to gazette or enforce the April 19 proclamation.

Rosli said the courts could ultimately be required to determine the constitutional consequences of the competing positions, including the status of the April 19 proclamation and any subsequent appointments and decisions founded upon it.

Due process

The April 19 proclamation also raised constitutional questions over whether mandatory processes were followed, the lawyer said.

“There must be due inquiry. An opportunity must be given to Tuanku Muhriz to answer any charges.”

Rosli said there was no evidence that the constitutional process had been properly followed in the lead-up to the April 19 proclamation.

He said the unresolved dispute could have far‑reaching implications for the functioning of the state administration if the constitutional questions remain unsettled.

Subscribe to our newsletter and get news delivered to your mailbox.