MAY 18 — The recent incidences involving Negeri Sembilan that have been in the news media and making rounds on social media have been riveting and described variously as a crisis, constitutional crisis, constitutional incident, and also as a political turmoil and an administrative crisis.
These are references to the removal of the Undang of Luak Sungei Ujong, the attempted removal of the Yang Di-Pertuan Besar of Negeri Sembilan, and the announcement of lack of confidence in the Menteri Besar and the State government of Negeri Sembilan.
While parties have played fast and loose with a Royal Institution headed by one of our most respected Rulers, it would appear that there may be more nuanced events in the background.
Over the several weeks passed, other matters have come to light in the news and social media. It appears that the tumult involving the Luak of Sungei Ujong may have began around November 2024 with allegations of misconduct and the asserted removal/dismissal of two office bearers/titleholders of the Luak of Sungei Ujong, namely YM Datuk Andulika Mandalika Zainol Ariffin bin Ibrahim and YM Datuk Johan Tua Tahu Wan Khairil Adli bin Mohd Yusof, by the Undang of Luak Sungei Ujong at that time, Datuk Mubarak bin Dohak.
There was apparently also the suspension on or about February 1, 2025 of the Datuk Dagang Lenggeng Faridzwan bin Abdul Ghafar.
Thereafter, Datuk Mubarak bin Dohak, who was accused of having contravened 33 customary and traditional laws and hukum syarak, was removed by the office bearers/titleholders of his own Luak of Sungei Ujong, in April/May 2025.
It has also been asserted that YM Datuk Orang Kaya Laksamana Sungei Ujong Shaharumzaman bin Abdul Malik was removed/dismissed on March 20, 2026.
On April 17, 2026, the matter of the removal/dismissal of Datuk Mubarak bin Dohak was brought before the special meeting of the Dewan Keadilan dan Undang of Negeri Sembilan (“the Dewan”), also known as “The Council of the Yang di-Pertuan Besar and the Ruling Chiefs”, pursuant to Article XVI of The Laws of the Constitution of Negeri Sembilan 1959 (“Constitution of Negeri Sembilan”). The Ibu Soko Klana Hulu and Waris Klana Hulu of Luak of Sungai Ujong were present by invitation of the Dewan.
The Menteri Besar of Negeri Sembilan announced in a press statement on April 17, 2026 that the Dewan had advised on the acceptance of the removal/dismissal of Datuk Mubarak bin Dohak as the 10th Undang of Sungai Unjong that was carried out in accordance with the customs and traditions of the Luak of Sungai Ujong, and thereby accepting its validity.
Article XVI(3) of the Constitution of Negeri Sembilan stipulates that the advice of the Dewan shall be final and not amenable to be challenged or called into question in any court.
These unleased a maelstrom of sorts.
Firstly, on April 19, 2026, Datuk Mubarak and three of the Undangs, namely the Undangs of the Luaks of Jelebu, Johol and Rembau, announced that they had decided to call for the abdication of the Yang di-Pertuan Besar pursuant to Article X of the Constitution of Negeri Sembilan.
The announcement was made and co-signed by Datuk Mubarak, stated to be acting as the Undang of Sungai Ujong.
Secondly, on April 23, 2026, the State Assembly sitting was officially opened by the Yang di-Pertuan Besar and was thereafter adjourned without any official reason being made known. It was also reported that Datuk Mubarak bin Dohak and the three Undangs did not attend the State Assembly opening, which was a departure from previous practice;
Thirdly, on 27 April 2026, it was reported that 14 Barisan Nasional (“BN”) assemblymen (from Umno) of the State Assembly of Negeri Sembilan had unanimously declared their withdrawal of support for the Menteri Besar and the State government for failing to handle the crisis properly. It was however subsequently reported in early May 2026 that these assemblymen would continue to support the Negeri Sembilan State government.
Removal of Datuk Mubarak bin Dohak as Undang of Luak Sungai Ujong
It may be of interest to recall that the courts have previously decided that matters of election or removal of an Undang is a matter for the Dewan pursuant to Articles XIV and XVI of the Constitution of Negeri Sembilan, and that Article 71(1) and (2) of the Federal Constitution guarantees that such matters are the exclusive jurisdiction of the Dewan, and hence, the courts would decline jurisdiction or has no jurisdiction in such matters.
Datuk Mubarak bin Dohak was twice a beneficiary of such decision in 2005 and 2012 when his installation/position as the 10th Undang of the Luak Sungai Ujong was disputed and contested in the case of Syed Abu Bakar Syed Hassan & Ors v Zainal Ariffin Bin Ibrahim & Ors [2005] 7 CLJ 457, and in the later case of YTM Datuk Othman Ismail v Dato’ Mubarak Dohak & Ors [2012] 1 LNS 1378 ([2012] CLJU 1378).
Calling for the abdication of the Yang di-Pertuan Besar
It would also be of interest to bear in mind that Article X(1) of the Constitution of Negeri Sembilan provides that the Yang di-Pertuan Besar may only be called upon by the Undangs to abdicate on specific grounds (there are 4 grounds set out in Article X(1)) and only after a “full and complete enquiry”.
Any decision calling for the abdication (temporary or otherwise) of the Yang di-Pertuan Besar would need to be issued as a Proclamation under the hands of the Undangs and the Menteri Besar of Negeri Sembilan pursuant to Article X(2) of the Constitution of Negeri Sembilan.
Given the gravity and seriousness of the matter, a “full and complete inquiry” under the Constitution of Negeri Sembilan necessarily connotes and would entail a formal and fair process (not an impromptu, hasty or ‘star chamber’ like proceedings), where clear and express grounds or charges are stated and made known to the Yang di-Pertuan Besar, cogent evidence are proffered and disclosed, and a fair opportunity to be heard and to answer the grounds or charges and to rebut any evidence are provided.
It should be noted that the requirements pursuant to Article X of the Constitution of Negeri Sembilan, in particular the requirements for a “full and complete inquiry” and that “a Proclamation…shall be issued under the hand of the Undangs and the Menteri Besar” are express constitutional stipulations that are required to be complied with.
It was however not announced or reported on which of the stipulated grounds in Article X the call for abdication was premised and decided, whether the alleged grounds or charges were informed to His Highness the Yang di-Pertuan Besar, and whether an opportunity to be heard and to answer the allegations were provided. Further, there is no indication/evidence of a signed Proclamation.
In other words, there is no information that the requirements of the Constitution of Negeri Sembilan and the rules of natural justice were complied with. In the absence of these compliances, any alleged or purported call for the abdication of His Highness the Yang di-Pertuan Besar would be invalid to say the least.
Any call for the Yang di-Pertuan Besar to step down, whether temporarily or otherwise, cannot and must not be done willy nilly.
Minutes of meeting of the Dewan
Thereafter, the state of play appears to have moved from the Luak, the Dewan and the State Assembly to a new arena, namely, the High Court of Malaya at Seremban.
It is reported that Datuk Mubarak bin Dohak, together with five others (“the Plaintiffs”), had on May 5, 2026 filed an originating summons at the High Court of Malaya at Seremban against Raja Norazli bin Raja Nordin (the Secretary to the Dewan at the material time), the Dewan, and the Negeri Sembilan State Government (“the Defendants”).
The Plaintiffs are seeking:
(i) a declaration that the Plaintiffs as members of the Dewan are entitled to a copy of the minutes of meeting of the special sitting of the Dewan held on April 17, 2026 (“Special Sitting Meeting Minutes”);
(ii) an order that the Defendants, themselves or their agents, present and hand over to the Plaintiff’s the Special Sitting Meeting Minutes within 7 days from the date of the order; and
(iii) an order for a stay of execution of any enforcement by the Defendants premised on the “decision” of the special sitting of the Dewan dated April 17, 2026 until the Special Sitting Meeting Minutes have been presented and handed over to the Plaintiffs.
A point of interest. It has been previously held by our courts, in different context, namely in relation to companies, that the right of a director to access confidential documents of a company ceases upon a person ceasing as a director.
It has further been reported that the Defendants had on May 13, 2026 raised a preliminary point of law, that is, whether the High Court has jurisdiction to hear the case in light of Article XVI (3) of the Constitution of Negeri Sembilan which states that the advice of the Dewan concerning, inter-alia, the removal from office of any of the Ruling Chiefs (which includes an Undang) shall be final and not to be challenged or called into question in any court on any ground.
The High Court had on May 13, 2026 directed the Defendants to file their application for summary determination on the preliminary point of law within seven days, and had in the meantime disallowed the Plaintiffs’ application for an ad interim stay of the “decision” of the Dewan dated April 17, 2026 pending the hearing of the suit on grounds that there was not enough material before the court to justify such an order.
It would appear that the suit would condense to two main issues: first, on jurisdiction, and second, on whether there is a right to have on demand at any time the minutes of meeting of the Dewan.
In respect of the latter, it may be of interest that:
(i) Article XVIII of the Constitution of Negeri Sembilan provides that the Dewan shall meet at least three times a year;
(ii) Article XXI of the Constitution of Negeri Sembilan provides that the Dewan may determine its own procedure; and
(iii) Article XXII(2) of the Constitution of Negeri Sembilan provides that “At every meeting of the Dewan the minutes of the last preceding meeting of the Dewan shall be confirmed with or without amendment as the case may require, before proceeding to despatch of any other business”.
As things or events currently stand, the instituting of the suit and the placing of the issues before the High Court for its decision may bring some measure of structure, rationality and eventual finality to matters afoot.
* The writer is a former president of the Malaysian Bar.
** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
