Negeri Sembilan has Way Forward, Issues and Legal Analysis arise from status of Mubarak Thahak as Undang (Part 2).
Commentary And Analysis . . . In Part 1 on Defects, and the Way Forward, we saw analysis on the purported removal of the Negeri Sembilan Yang di-Pertuan Besar (YDPB), the standing of the Undang Luak, and the jurisdictional conflict between Adat, Law and executive power.
Judicial Review arises when government enters the picture.
Negeri Sembilan Way Forward
The Way Forward in Negeri Sembilan lies, among others, on the status of Mubarak Thahak under Adat.
Umno Deputy President Tok Mat differs.
Adat And Law
We will know more if the meeting, scheduled for Friday 29 May 2026, was called on future date.
There’s breaking news on the meeting.
Originating Summons (OS) or judicial review can help seek declaration on whether the 17 April 2026 removal of Datuk Mubarak Thahak complied with Article 16 and Clause 14(3) of the State Constitution and Adat. OS, for those unfamiliar, involves facts not in dispute. If there are facts in dispute, the court can, may and will substitute OS with Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim.
This determination was threshold issue.
If the removal was invalid, all four Undang had standing but the Article 10(1) process remains defective. If valid, the 19 April declaration fails on composition alone.
Negeri Sembilan Judicial Review
Judicial Review can help quash the declaration of 19 April 2026 on the grounds of jurisdictional error, breach of natural justice, and non-compliance with Article 10(1) and Adat. The court can provide declaratory relief which allows Tuanku Muhriz as YDPB under Article 7(2).
The court, in preserving the the status quo, can provide interim relief for restraining any person from acting as YDPB or from exercising the functions of that office pending determination.
This avoids irreversible acts that would complicate remedy.
If the parties wish, they can resolve the matter within customary structures viz. Adat. They can initiate fresh enquiry under Article 10(1) conducted by the validly appointed Undang only.
The enquiry must be conducted in accordance with audi alteram partem (hear the other side) and produce written reasons. This preserves the role of Adat while satisfying constitutional requirements.
All parties must avoid actions that invite federal intervention under Article 153.
Any challenge via federal involvement should be framed as a question of state autonomy under Article 71(4), and be raised in the same judicial review proceedings if necessary.
If Mubarak’s removal was upheld, the shortest route for lawful resolution was fresh sitting of the three remaining Undang, or the appointment of a replacement Undang followed by a four-person sitting.
Any attempt on proceeding with the 19 April declaration will likely be struck down for jurisdictional error.
If the removal of Mubarak was set aside, the parties return as four Undang, but must still comply with Article 10(1) procedurally.
The current declaration cannot be salvaged by ratification, as quod ab initio vitiosum est non potest tractu temporis convalescere (that which was defective from the beginning cannot be made valid by lapse of time).
The Way Forward must conform with the written Constitution, observe natural justice, and respect the division of powers between adat, statute, and the courts. Until that occurs, Tuanku Muhriz Tuanku Munawir continues as YDPB under Article 7(2) of the State Constitution.
Issues in Conflict follow:
Validity of the 19 April 2026 declaration under Article 10(1).
Lawfulness of Mubarak Thahak’s removal and alleged backdating.
Capacity of three Undang for acting without the fourth.
Jurisdiction of the Dewan Keadilan dan Undang over Undang Luak.
Scope of civil court jurisdiction under Article 121(1A).
Limits of federal intervention under Article 71(4); and
Legal status of Tunku Nadzaruddin Tuanku Ja’afar’s appointment.
Chronology of Facts follow.
17 April 2026: The Dewan Keadilan dan Undang (Council of Justice and Law) resolved on removing Datuk Mubarak Thahak as Undang of Sungai Ujong for 33 alleged breaches of adat. The resolution purportedly takes effect on 13 May 2025.
19 April 2026: The four Undang Luak, including Mubarak Thahak, announced the removal of Tuanku Muhriz and the appointment of Tunku Nadzaruddin Tuanku Ja’afar. No reasons or enquiry were disclosed.
The declaration of 19 April 2026 purportedly removing Tuanku Muhriz as YDPB remains void ab initio (void from the beginning) for want of jurisdiction ratione personae (by reason of the person) and breach of natural justice [naturalis iustitia].
20 April 2026: Menteri Besar Aminuddin Harun declared the announcement invalid, citing Mubarak’s removal.
22 April 2026: The state legislative assembly proceeded with Tuanku Muhriz officiating. The Undang were absent.
23 May 2026: A letter was circulated for a special sitting on 29 May 2026 in Tampin, inviting the Attorney-General and Chief Secretary as witnesses.
Jurisdictional Defect
Article 10(1) vests the power for removing the YDPB in the Undang Yang Empat (Four Ruling Chiefs).
The principle of nemo dat quod non habet (no one gives what he does not have) applies.
A person removed from office cannot exercise the powers of that office.
If Mubarak’s removal was valid on 17 April 2026, his participation on 19 April 2026 was nullity.
The act was then performed by three persons, which does not satisfy the constitutional requirement of four. The declaration was therefore ultra vires (beyond powers) and void.
Breach Of Natural Justice
Even assuming proper composition, the process failed on observing audi alteram partem (hear the other side).
The ruler was not given notice of the allegations, particulars of misconduct, nor an opportunity for responding.
The absence of reasons violates the requirement of a reasoned decision under administrative law and constitutional custom.
Such breach renders the decision susceptible. It can be set aside.
Any lawful resolution requires fresh process under Article 10(1) of the Undang-Undang Tubuh Kerajaan Negeri Sembilan 1959 involving only the validly appointed Undang Luak, and observance of audi alteram partem (hear the other side).
Justiciability And Jurisdiction
Article 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution excludes civil court jurisdiction over matters of Islamic law and Malay custom.
However, where the issue was compliance with the written State Constitution, the High Court retains supervisory jurisdiction through judicial review.
The question was on constitutional interpretation, not adat per se. Authority exists for this distinction in Potong v Public Prosecutor 4 MLJ 502.
Executive And Federalism
The Menteri Besar’s refusal on recognising the declaration was political. It does not determine legal validity.
Any attempt by federal actors for directing the state legislative assembly’s confidence motion must be examined against Article 71(4) of the Federal Constitution, which protects state constitutional autonomy. If there’s no public order basis, under Article 153, such intervention risks being ultra vires.
Successor Appointment
The appointment of Tunku Nadzaruddin was contingent on a lawful vacancy. Since no lawful vacancy exists, the appointment was also void. The principle ex nihilo nihil fit (from nothing comes nothing) applies. — NMH
Longtime Borneo watcher Joe Fernandez has been writing for many years on both sides of the Southeast Asia Sea. He should not be mistaken for a namesake formerly with the Daily Express in Kota Kinabalu. JF keeps a Blog under FernzTheGreat on the nature of human relationships.
Facebook Comments
Facebook Comments