The state constitutional crisis that is playing out in Negeri Sembilan has grabbed the attention of the nation. His Royal Highness, Tuanku Muhriz ibni Almarhum Tuanku Munawir (“HRH”), the 11th Yang di-Pertuan Besar of Negeri Sembilan, was elected on 29 December 20081 and has been outspoken in upholding judicial independence2 and integrity,3 against normalising corruption4 and on the need for good governance.5
The Rules of Natural Justice Apply to All
The purported proclamation dated 19 April 2026 to remove HRH (“Purported Proclamation”), which has been rejected by the Attorney General’s Chambers (“AGC”),6 fails on one or more constitutional requirements. Article X(1) of the Laws of the Constitution of Negeri Sembilan 1959 (“State Constitution”) provides that it is only “if it is considered and determined after full and complete enquiry by the Undangs” that the Undangs (provided they are validly holding office)7 may call upon HRH to withdraw from the exercise of his functions or to abdicate. Quite apart from the validity of the Purported Proclamation and its issuance (which the AGC has said is invalid), no contemporaneous record has been published to show that any such enquiry was ever held, nor that HRH was ever given an opportunity to rebut the allegations made against HRH.
The Privy Council decision in B Surinder Singh Kanda v The Government of the Federation of Malaya [1962] 1 MLJ 169 recognises the landmark principle that the right to be heard carries the fundamental right of a person accused of wrongdoing to know the case against him and to be given a fair opportunity to correct or contradict accusations against him, before any decision that is adverse to him is taken. This Malaysian case has become the locus classicus on natural justice across the Commonwealth and common law world.
In Surinder’s case, following an inquiry, a police inspector was dismissed by the Commissioner of Police — an authority subordinate to the Police Service Commission, which had the actual power to appoint and dismiss. Prior to the disciplinary hearing, the adjudicating officer was furnished with a board of inquiry report that condemned the police inspector, but the police inspector was never provided with the report nor given an opportunity to address its findings throughout his disciplinary proceedings, only obtaining a copy on the fourth day of his trial in court. In a famous and oft-quoted passage, Lord Denning, in delivering the advice of the Privy Council, said:
“If the right to be heard is to be a real right which is worth anything, it must carry with it a right in the accused man to know the case which is made against him. He must know what evidence has been given and what statements have been made affecting him: and then he must be given a fair opportunity to correct or contradict them. The judge or whoever has to adjudicate must not hear evidence or receive representations from one side behind the back of the other.”
As every law student knows, even if an “enquiry” was purportedly held (albeit in this case, which the Dewan Keadilan and Undang said was invalid),8 holding it without the presence of HRH would constitute a breach of natural justice. If ordinary citizens are constitutionally protected from unlawful removal from office without a fair hearing, HRH is entitled to no less protection. Failure to comply with Article X(1) of the State Constitution renders any such purported action to remove HRH invalid. The Malaysian courts, if called upon to determine such issues, would set aside any decision reached in breach of such principles.
Unanswered Questions
The following are some unanswered questions:
- On 16 September 2026, why did the current Menteri Besar (“MB”) announce the purported removal of HRH based on the Purported Proclamation — a proclamation which his predecessor had publicly stated was invalid9 and which the MB himself claimed to have signed under duress and coercion, according to the police report he lodged on 8 September 2026?10
- If the MB was coerced or signed the Purported Proclamation under duress, the public is entitled to know by whom, how and why, and why he lodged the police report only on 8 September, some five weeks after the Purported Proclamation? Further, why did he then later endorse the Purported Proclamation?
- On what basis did the then-state executive council (“Exco”) purport to suspend the State Secretary and State Legal Adviser on 22 September 2026,11 as they were both federal officers, and the Exco’s appointments had been revoked on 20 September 2026?12
- What is the MB’s response now that the AGC has stated plainly that both such officers were in federal service and not subject to the Exco?13
Given that HRH has revoked the appointments of all state Exco members,14 the basis on which the state government continues to operate may be in need of some clarification.
Finally, the Malaysian Bar notes the media statement of the Malay Rulers dated 14 October 2026, which calls for any difference of position to be resolved in accordance with custom and law and guided by the provisions of the State Constitution.15 The Bar respectfully agrees. Article X is one such provision in the State Constitution, compliance with which is mandatory.
Anand Raj
President
Malaysian Bar
16 October 2026
1 Institusi Diraja, Portal Rasmi Kerajaan Negeri Sembilan.
2 “Conference of Rulers proposes PM ceases appointing JAC members”, New Straits Times, 30 November 2022: “As cited in two of the principles of Rukun Negara, namely Supremacy of the Constitution and the Rule of Law, these principles are extremely important to ensure enforcement agencies and the Judiciary are free from external influence in executing their responsibilities, His Highness said.”
3 “Negeri Sembilan ruler calls for ‘reasoned response’ to objections to Terrirudin’s appointment to JAC”, The Edge, 24 November 2025: HRH observed that “the judiciary cannot exercise its function effectively without the assistance of the Bar. Thus, a competent and principled Bar is equally vital.”
4 Titah Ucapan D.Y.M.M Yang di-Pertuan Besar Negeri Sembilan Darul Khusus Tuanku Muhriz Ibni Almarhum Tuanku Munawir | Sempena Hari Keputeraan Ke-78 D.Y.M.M Yang Di-Pertuan Besar Negeri Sembilan Darul Khusus, Portal Rasmi Kerajaan Negeri Sembilan, 14 Januari 2026: His Majesty said; “Beta amat terperanjat dan kecewa apabila masih wujud pihak yang terus memberikan sokongan kepada individu yang telah disabitkan bersalah atas tuduhan rasuah yang amat besar, seolah-olah perbuatan tersebut boleh diterima dan dimaafkan.”
5 Titah Ucapan D.Y.M.M Yang di-Pertuan Besar Negeri Sembilan Darul Khusus Tuanku Muhriz Ibni Almarhum Tuanku Munawir | Istiadat Pelantikan & Mengangkat Sumpah Ahli Majlis Mesyuarat Kerajaan Negeri Sembilan Darul Khusus, 2026, Portal Rasmi Kerajaan Negeri Sembilan, 7 Ogos 2026.
6 “Kenyataan Media | Isu Berhubung Kenyataan Media Majis Mesyuarat Kerajaan Negeri Sembilan”, Attorney General’s Chambers’ website, 17 September 2026.
7 “Three of the four Undangs who attempted to oust Tuanku Muhriz were not valid chiefs, says Negeri Sembilan state council”, The Edge, 1 August 2026.
8 Ibid.
9 “Snapshot | MB says chieftains’ declaration to remove ruler invalid”, Malaysiakini, 20 April 2026.
10 “Proclamation to remove ruler was signed under duress, says Negeri Sembilan MB”, Free Malaysia Today, 9 September 2026.
11 “Negeri Sembilan govt suspends state secretary, legal adviser amid royal row”, Malay Mail, 22 September 2026.
12 Government of Negeri Sembilan Gazette, 24 September 2026.
13 “No legal authority for Negeri Sembilan exco to suspend state secretary, state legal adviser — AGC”, The Edge, 22 September 2026.
14 “N. Sembilan Ruler formally revokes appointments of 10 exco members”, Malay Mail, 24 September 2026.
15 “Kenyataan Media oleh Kebawah Duli Yang Maha Mulia Raja-Raja Melayu”, 14 Oktober 2026.