The Dewan Keadilan dan Undang Negeri Sembilan has urged police to investigate alleged criminal offences stemming from attempts to challenge Tuanku Muhriz’s royal position.
PETALING JAYA: The Dewan Keadilan dan Undang (DKU) Negeri Sembilan has urged police and the Attorney-General’s Chambers to investigate and, where appropriate, prosecute those allegedly responsible for criminal offences arising from efforts to challenge the position of Tuanku Muhriz Tuanku Munawir as Yang di-Pertuan Besar Negeri Sembilan.
In a strongly worded 17-page statement issued today, the DKU reiterated that Tuanku Muhriz remains the legitimate ruler of the state and maintained that a series of documents issued by a rival group had no effect on his constitutional position.
The statement represents the council’s most detailed response so far to the dispute, which centres on a purported proclamation dated April 19 seeking Tuanku Muhriz’s removal and subsequent attempts to enforce the document.
The DKU said the April 19 document did not fulfil the mandatory requirements of Article 10 of the Negeri Sembilan Constitution, including the requirement for a “full and complete enquiry” before the former Undangs could call on the Yang di-Pertuan Besar to vacate the throne.
It maintained that there was no record of such an enquiry having been conducted.
According to the council, minutes from its March 5 sitting contained no reference to any investigation into Tuanku Muhriz’s position. It also said the ruler had neither been informed of any such investigation nor given an opportunity to respond.
The DKU further disputed the rival group’s account of the March 5 proceedings, which allegedly involved three questions being put to Tuanku Muhriz followed by a 45-day period.
Such proceedings, it said, could not satisfy the constitutional requirement for an enquiry.
“Time passing is not an enquiry,” the council said.
The DKU also questioned the validity of the April 19 document because several individuals who signed it as Undangs were, according to the council, no longer legally recognised as holding those positions.
It said Article 16(3) of the state Constitution made its decisions on the appointment, removal or vacation of office of the Ruling Chiefs final.
As a result, the DKU argued that the constitutional threshold for the number of Undangs required to exercise the power under Article 10 had not been fulfilled.
The council also disputed the subsequent signing of the purported proclamation by Menteri Besar Datuk Ismail Lasim on Aug 3.
It said Datuk Seri Aminuddin Harun, who was Menteri Besar when the document was presented in April, had declined to sign it on April 20.
According to the DKU, Article 10 requires the proclamation to be issued as soon as practicable after the purported decision and to bear the signatures of the Undangs and the Menteri Besar.
The council pointed out that Ismail was not Menteri Besar on April 19 and had not been present when the document was signed.
His signature, added more than three months later, therefore could not revive a process that had already lapsed, it argued.
The DKU also highlighted what it described as an inconsistency in the rival group’s position — that Tuanku Muhriz had ceased to be ruler on April 19, while the purported process was only completed on Aug 3 when Ismail signed the document.
It said the two positions were mutually contradictory.
The council also cited several developments after April 19 which, it said, were inconsistent with the claim that Tuanku Muhriz had ceased to hold office.
Among them was the ruler’s decision to dissolve the Negeri Sembilan Legislative Assembly on June 5.
Ismail was subsequently sworn in as Menteri Besar before Tuanku Muhriz on Aug 2, one day after the state election.
Ten state executive councillors also later took their oaths of office and allegiance before Tuanku Muhriz at Istana Besar Seri Menanti.
The DKU said Ismail attended its Aug 20 sitting, chaired by Tuanku Muhriz, during which he briefed members on developments in the state.
According to the council, these events were incompatible with the rival group’s assertion that Tuanku Muhriz had ceased to be Yang di-Pertuan Besar on April 19.
The DKU further rejected the validity of a gathering held on Sept 5 which the rival group described as a “special sitting”.
It stressed that the state Constitution provides for a single Dewan Keadilan dan Undang and said the Sept 5 gathering had neither been convened with Tuanku Muhriz’s consent nor through the DKU secretary.
The gathering therefore could not be regarded as a constitutional sitting of the council, it said.
The DKU added that the gathering was held while an interim injunction issued by the High Court on June 5 remained in force.
The order had prevented the plaintiffs in the proceedings, including individuals associated with the disputed documents, from holding or participating in meetings purporting to be DKU meetings or taking steps that could change the existing position concerning the council’s administration and affairs.
The council also dismissed the validity of two letters dated Sept 30 and described as “warkah”, which were addressed to the Chief Secretary to the Government and the Attorney-General.
The letters sought, among other matters, federal intervention concerning the State Secretary’s position and called for documents issued in Tuanku Muhriz’s name not to be implemented without the rival group’s approval.
The DKU said the signatories had no constitutional authority to issue such directions.
It described the letters as an act of “derhaka” (treason) and said they could potentially constitute criminal offences under the Penal Code.
The council also cautioned state and federal civil servants against acting on instructions issued by individuals whose claims to authority were being disputed.
It said public officers were required to comply with the Federal and state constitutions, the law, court orders and the legitimate chain of command.
The DKU reaffirmed its July 31 decision that the April 19 document failed to comply with Article 10, was unconstitutional and had no legal effect.
It maintained that Tuanku Muhriz remained the Yang di-Pertuan Besar and chairman of the DKU, and that there was no vacancy in the office.
The council also rejected the notion that Negeri Sembilan has a collective or multiple Rulers consisting of the Yang di-Pertuan Besar and the Ruling Chiefs.
It cited Article 7 of the state Constitution, which provides for a Yang di-Pertuan Besar to exercise the functions and powers of a Ruler and to take precedence over all others in the state.
The DKU called on anyone claiming that a “full and complete enquiry” had been conducted under Article 10 to produce the complete records before a forum with the jurisdiction to determine the matter.
It said issues relating to its April 17 sitting were already before the High Court and would be addressed through the appropriate legal process.
The council also urged the federal and state governments, civil servants and members of the public not to give effect to the disputed documents dated April 19, Sept 5 and Oct 2, or the Sept 30 letters arising from them.
