Analysis on the removal of the Yang di-Pertuan Besar (YDPB), the standing of the Undang Luak, and the jurisdictional (power) conflict between adat, statute, and executive power (Part 1).
Commentary And Analysis . . . The Way Forward on Adat in Negeri Sembilan, out of constitutional crisis, probably involves convening a sitting of the validly appointed Undang Luak only, after Datuk Mubarak Thahak’s status was determined by the Dewan Keadilan dan Undang.
The clash between adat and law arises, on curing defects, provided there’s right forum for resolution viz. one with jurisdiction (power).
There must be enquiry that satisfies audi alteram partem (hear the other side) and Article 10(1), with written reasons.
If the dispute persists, an Originating Summons (OS) for judicial review can help determine constitutional compliance. 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.
In any case, what must be avoided was political intervention—read Federal—that may undermine Article 71(4).
Adat And Law
If true, the proposed sitting on 29 May 2026 provides forum for political accommodation viz. out of court settlement which may or may not be recorded by the High Court.
However, politics cannot cure jurisdictional defect rooted in constitutional procedure. The clash between Adat And Law, at some point, needs resolution.
Yang Di Pertuan Besar
The facts available show that the declaration of 19 April 2026 was legally defective and does not affect the tenure of Tuanku Muhriz Tuanku Munawir, as Yang Di Pertuan Besar (YDPB), under Article 7(2) of the Undang-Undang Tubuh Kerajaan Negeri Sembilan 1959.
Defect
The Defect arises from two independent grounds:
First, the composition of the body that made the declaration failed on satisfying Article 10(1).
If the removal of Datuk Mubarak Thahak by the Dewan Keadilan dan Undang on 17 April 2026 was valid, he ceased as Undang Luak and could not exercise the powers of that office.
A decision made by three persons does not meet the constitutional requirement of the Undang Yang Empat.
This renders the act void ab initio (void from the beginning) for want of jurisdiction ratione personae (by reason of the person).
Second, even if the four Undang had standing, the process did not comply with natural justice.
Article 10(1) implies a determination based on a full and complete enquiry with notice and an opportunity for being heard.
“Misconduct”
The public announcement cited “Misconduct, without particulars, and without affording the ruler audi alteram partem (hear the other side).
This constitutes breach of natural justice [naturalis iustitia] and renders the decision susceptible. It can be set aside.
The High Court retains supervisory jurisdiction for determining whether there was compliance with the written State Constitution, notwithstanding Article 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution. The court may not review the merits of adat, but it may review whether the procedure prescribed by the written Constitution was followed.
Federal intervention in the state political process does not cure the constitutional defect. If there was no public order justification, under Article 153, any Federal intervention risks being ultra vires under Article 71(4).
In Part 2, we will look at threshold issues like the removal of Datuk Mubarak Thahak as Undang. — NMH
Also read:
Negeri Sembilan: Emergency Cannot Remove Four Undang
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