MAY 25 — In his recent commentary in the Malay Mail on 18 May 2026, “What games afoot regarding Negeri Sembilan?”, former Malaysian Bar President Christopher Leong advances a highly formalist interpretation of the ongoing constitutional tensions in Negeri Sembilan. Leong argues that the removal of Datuk Mubarak Dohak as the Undang of Sungai Ujong was legally valid because it received the endorsement of the Dewan Keadilan dan Undang (the Dewan), and that the courts therefore ought not to intervene. He similarly characterises the subsequent call by the Undang Yang Empat for the abdication of the Yang di-Pertuan Besar as procedurally defective for failing to comply with Article 10(2) of the Constitution of Negeri Sembilan.

While Leong’s analysis reflects a conventional black-letter constitutional approach, it arguably overlooks a central feature of Negeri Sembilan’s constitutional order: the continuing constitutional significance of Adat as a foundational source of authority. The present constitutional tensions cannot be understood solely through the lens of imported Westminster-style formalism. Negeri Sembilan represents a distinctive hybrid constitutional system in which written constitutional provisions coexist with older customary structures that predate the modern state itself.

This article does not seek to prejudge the merits of the ongoing legal proceedings presently before the High Court, which are tentatively expected to be heard in July 2026. Rather, it seeks to examine the broader constitutional principles and historical traditions relevant to understanding the present dispute within the unique constitutional framework of Negeri Sembilan.

The limits of “finality” under Article 16(3)

Leong relies heavily on Article 16(3) of the Constitution of Negeri Sembilan, which provides that the advice of the Dewan on matters of custom shall be final and not questioned in court. He further relies on earlier judicial authorities to suggest that the High Court lacks jurisdiction over the current proceedings brought by the removed Undang and his supporters.

However, such an interpretation risks conflating two distinct constitutional questions: the non-justiciability of the substantive merits of a customary decision, and the reviewability of the procedures by which that decision was reached.

Publicly available reports indicate that the current proceedings include an application seeking disclosure of records related to the Dewan meeting held on 17 April 2026, during which the removal of the Undang of Sungai Ujong was approved. The broader constitutional issue raised is therefore not necessarily whether the Dewan’s customary judgment was substantively correct, but whether decisions involving significant customary offices remain subject to minimum standards of legality and procedural fairness.

Under administrative law, ouster or “finality” clauses have generally not been interpreted to completely exclude judicial scrutiny when questions of jurisdiction or procedural fairness arise. Accordingly, the pending proceedings may ultimately require the courts to clarify the constitutional limits of Article 16(3) within Negeri Sembilan’s unique customary framework.

Importantly, judicial scrutiny of procedure need not be equated with judicial interference in the substance of Adat itself. Rather, the constitutional challenge lies in balancing respect for customary autonomy with the broader constitutional commitment to legality and procedural fairness.

Adat constitutionalism and the elected monarchy

Leong’s second major criticism concerns the subsequent action of the Undang Yang Empat in calling for the abdication of the Yang di-Pertuan Besar, Tuanku Muhriz ibni Almarhum Tuanku Munawir. He characterises the move as procedurally questionable due to the absence of a Proclamation co-signed by the Menteri Besar pursuant to Article 10(2) of the State Constitution.

Yet this interpretation arguably underestimates the historical structure of Negeri Sembilan’s constitutional order. Ancient constitutional customs are expressly preserved and recognised under Article 32 of the Constitution of Negeri Sembilan, signalling that the written text was intended to coexist with, rather than supplant, the foundational Adat. The state’s constitutional framework emerged not merely from modern constitutional drafting, but from a series of historical political compacts involving the Undang Yang Empat and the Yang di-Pertuan Besar.

Among these were the 1895 arrangement involving Yamtuan Antah ibnu Raja Radin and the Undang Yang Empat, the 1898 treaty associated with Tuanku Muhammad Shah ibni Tunku Antah and the consolidation of the Federated Negeri Sembilan, and the 1934 covenant involving Tuanku Abdul Rahman ibni Tuanku Muhammad and the Ruling Chiefs. These historical arrangements ultimately informed the constitutional principles reflected in the modern Constitution of Negeri Sembilan, including the provisions governing succession to the office of Yang di-Pertuan Besar under Article 7 (3) of the State Constitution.

Unlike hereditary monarchies, where authority flows downward from an established royal line, Negeri Sembilan historically developed as an elective polity rooted in territorial and customary authority. As the Adat maxim states:

“Alam beraja, luak berundang, suku berlembaga, anak buah berbuapak.”

(“The realm has a king, the territories have their Undangs, the clans have their Lembagas, the sub-clans have their Buapaks”)

Within the constitutional evolution of Negeri Sembilan, the authority of the Undang Yang Empat predates the institutionalisation of the modern Yang di-Pertuan Besar. Historically, it was the territorial chiefs who collectively invited Raja Melewar from Pagaruyung in 1773 to serve as the first Yang di-Pertuan Besar.

From this perspective, the role of the Undang Yang Empat cannot be understood merely as ceremonial participants within a palace hierarchy. Rather, they function as constitutional custodians within an elective customary monarchy whose legitimacy derives from the collective customary consensus of Dato’- Dato’ Lembaga, Buapak, Ibu Soko and Anak-anak Buah in each luak, showing the uniqueness of the Adat system applicable in Negeri Sembilan.  

The constitutional role of the menteri besar

This broader constitutional context also complicates the interpretation of Article 10 (2) of the Negeri Sembilan State Constitution. A strictly literal reading may suggest that the Menteri Besar possesses the capacity to effectively prevent any customary determination of the Undang Yang Empat concerning the throne simply by withholding his signature.

However, such an interpretation risks introducing a political veto into what has historically been understood as a customary constitutional process.

The Menteri Besar is fundamentally a political office-holder operating within the elected executive branch. It is therefore arguable that Article 10(2) should not be interpreted as conferring upon the Menteri Besar a substantive veto over the customary authority of the Undang Yang Empat, but rather as a constitutional mechanism for formal promulgation.

The recent political developments involving temporary shifts in legislative support for the Menteri Besar further illustrate the sensitivity of allowing contemporary political contestation to intersect too directly with customary constitutional institutions.

Similarly, the adjournment of the State Assembly on 23 April 2026 and the subsequent non-attendance of the Undangs Yang Empat and Tunku Besar Tampin may be understood not merely as political disagreement, but as indications of deeper constitutional tensions regarding the relationship between customary sovereignty and modern executive governance.

Conclusion

The constitutional order of Negeri Sembilan rests upon a unique trinity of authority: the Yang di-Pertuan Besar, the Undang Yang Empat with Tunku Besar Tampin, and the elected Government. Its constitutional structure is neither wholly traditional nor wholly modern but represents an evolving synthesis of the written constitution and living Adat.

The current constitutional tensions, therefore, cannot be adequately analysed solely through the framework of contemporary legal formalism. While written constitutional procedures remain essential, constitutionalism in Negeri Sembilan also requires sensitivity to the historical role of the customary institutions within the state’s enduring system of checks and balances.

As related matters remain pending before the courts, caution must naturally be exercised in discussing the substantive merits of the dispute. Nevertheless, the broader constitutional questions raised by the present controversy — particularly concerning the interaction between constitutional modernity and customary governance — remain matters of legitimate academic and public interest.

* Dr Ikmal Hisham Md Tah teaches constitutional and administrative law at the Faculty of Law, Universiti Teknologi MARA Shah Alam.

** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.