G25 demands answers in Negeri Sembilan crisis

We, the members of G25, are deeply disturbed by the unprecedented attempts to remove Tuanku Muhriz Tuanku Munawir as the Yang di-Pertuan Besar of Negeri Sembilan, and by the extraordinary events that have followed.

What should have been quickly put to rest is unfolding into not just matters of internal dispute concerning the institutions of the ruler and the undangs, but a serious constitutional crisis which raises fundamental questions concerning the rule of law, the limits of constitutional powers, and respect for the federal and state constitutions by those entrusted to uphold them.

Tuanku Muhriz has served as the Yang di-Pertuan Besar of Negeri Sembilan for almost 18 years. During this period, he has conducted himself with the dignity, restraint and propriety expected of a respected constitutional ruler. There has been no established public record of misconduct that would remotely explain an attempt of this magnitude to remove him from office.

Hence, the attempts to remove him demand prompt and serious investigations and action, especially with regard to the individuals who issued and supported the purported proclamation to depose him.

The Dewan Keadilan dan Undang (DKU) Negeri, a body established under Article 16 of the State Constitution, had declared that the 19 April purported proclamation to depose Tuanku Muhriz was unconstitutional, null and void.

It found that three of the four individuals behind the purported proclamation had no valid customary standing to speak for the luaks of Sungei Ujong, Rembau and Jelebu.

The DKU also pointed out that no full and complete enquiry as required by Article 10(1) of the Constitution of the State of Negeri Sembilan was ever conducted; and that the menteri besar at the material time (Aminuddin Harun) had refused to sign the invalid purported proclamation by reason of its deficiency.

Accordingly, the DKU had unequivocally affirmed that Tuanku Muhriz remains the lawful Yang di-Pertuan Besar. The DKU stressed that, under the State Constitution, the state executive council has no authority to determine who is the lawful ruler.

The legal position is clear. Article 10 of the State Constitution provides a specific constitutional framework governing the disqualification and removal of the ruler, including defined grounds, procedures and safeguards. It is not a general or unrestricted power to remove a ruler whenever those purporting to exercise it consider it appropriate.

The Attorney General’s Chambers has also stated in its media statement that the purported proclamation was invalid for failing to comply with Article 10, that there was no evidence that any of the disqualifying factors under Article 10(1) applied to Tuanku Muhriz. There was also no evidence that the procedures prescribed by the article had been complied with.

Accordingly, the chambers declared that the current menteri besar (Ismail Lasim) and state executive councillors have no power to unilaterally remove or declare vacant the office of the ruler.

The chambers further stated that the current state executive council’s subsequent announcement purporting to recognise Tuanku Muhriz’s removal had no legal effect.

Where the State Constitution prescribes clear grounds, procedures and safeguards for the removal of a ruler, those requirements are mandatory and must be strictly complied with. Legality must be determined according to the State Constitution and the proper legal process.

Against this legal background, the circumstances surrounding the purported removal are extremely troubling. It seems that no ‘full and complete’ inquiry was said to have been undertaken.

The DKU has itself stated that the purported attempt to depose Tuanku Muhriz without the mandatory ‘full and complete’ inquiry required under the State Constitution was unlawful. It stated that the individuals involved in seeking to further depose him had acted in a manner that was “derhaka” (treasonous or disloyal) under adat (customary practice) and law.

G25 notes with deep concern that the menteri besar, having taken an oath of loyalty before the ruler on 2 August upon his appointment as menteri besar, had, the very next day, 3 August, and unbeknown to the ruler, affixed his signature to the purported proclamation calling for the ruler’s abdication.

This was not made known to the public – not until 5 September, when there was an announcement by the four undangs that Menteri Besar Ismail Lassim had signed the purported proclamation.

The legitimacy of three of the undangs – Mubarak Thahak (Sungai Ujong), Maarof Mat Rashad (Jelebu) and Abd Rahim Yasin (Rembau) – is contested, as the DKU has deposed them and installed successors.

Puzzlingly a month later, on 9 September, the menteri besar issued a statement to the effect that he had affixed his signature to the purported proclamation not voluntarily but ‘under duress’ and had lodged a police report. He also asserted that the purported proclamation was invalid by reason of non-compliance with the State Constitution.

Yet, more perplexing still, on 16 September, the menteri besar and his state executive councillors issued a public statement recognising the purported proclamation and calling for the abdication of the ruler.

G25 calls upon the menteri besar to explain and reveal the identity of the person who had coerced him into signing the proclamation on 3 August, if at all, as he has claimed. He must also explain the subsequent contradictory position that he took on 16 September in asserting the ‘validity’ of the proclamation.

The flip-flops must be explained. The public deserves to know.

G25 commends the attorney general in coming out with a media statement on 17 September declaring that the Negeri Sembilan state executive council’s decision recognising the removal of Tuanku Muhriz as the state ruler is invalid and has no legal effect.

The Attorney General’s Chambers said the menteri besar and state executive councillors did not have unilateral powers to terminate or vacate the ruler’s office, adding that the proclamation’s validity and effect must be determined through lawful constitutional and legal process.

G25 takes note that the appointments of the state executive councillors have been revoked by the ruler pursuant to Article 38(5) of the State Constitution with effect from 20 September 2026 and that this has been gazetted by the state administration via Negeri Sembilan State Gazette NS PU 18 dated 24 September. The revocations were done due to violations of their oaths of office.

But the menteri besar and the state executive councillor were adamant and had refused to recognise the revocations, and had publicly announced their defiance.

As a consequence, the state administration acted to lock out the state executive members from entering their respective offices so as to prevent them from carrying out official duties on the grounds that their appointments have been revoked.

G25 applauds the firm stand taken by the prime minister on 23 September against the unbecoming actions of the menteri besar and state executive councillors (whose appointments have since been revoked) in attempting to remove Tuanku Muhriz as the Yang Di-Pertuan Besar.

In coming down hard on them, the prime minister did not mince his words. He described the actions of the menteri besar and the state executive councillors as being disrespectful and uncivilised (“biadap dan tidak bertamadun”).

We, the members of G25, stand firmly in support of the lawful constitutional position of Tuanku Muhriz as the Yang di-Pertuan Besar of Negeri Sembilan. We uphold the principle that any challenge to that position must be resolved strictly according to the State Constitution, adat and the law.

G25 respectfully urges the menteri besar to do the right and honourable thing under the circumstances, that is, to resign as menteri besar as he has lost his credibility as a state political leader in the light of his attempt to remove Tuanku Muhriz as the rightful ruler of the state, his indecisiveness and his failure to explain who had coerced him on 3^r August into signing a purported proclamation which he himself knew was invalid and of no effect. And, equally pertinent, why the menteri besar subsequently, on 16 September, took a contradictory turn on the ‘validity’ of the purported proclamation.

In the light of all this unacceptable behaviour, the menteri besar has lost his moral authority to lead and to govern.

We in G25 are troubled by this matter as the act of calling for the deposition of a ruler is a serious crime. It is the crime of treason.

Under section 121B of the Penal Code the act of treason is punishable with mandatory imprisonment for a minimum of 30 years and not more than 40 years. It is also a crime of sedition under section 4 of the Sedition Act of 1948.

G25 urges the enforcement authorities (including the attorney general, the guardian of public conscience) to be firm against those committing the acts of treason and sedition, especially against those who openly, publicly and ashamedly commit such crimes, regardless of the status of such people.

The sanctity of the federal and State Constitutions and the rule of law must be vigilantly upheld. Otherwise, there will be a gradual collapse of law and order, which we are now beginning to feel and witness. – G25

Support our work by making a donation. Tap to download the QR code below and scan this QR code from Gallery by using TnG e-wallet or most banking apps: