KUALA LUMPUR: As voters in Negeri Sembilan head to the polls tomorrow, the key question extends beyond which coalition will form the next state government. A far more delicate constitutional issue looms – who has the legal authority to swear in the next menteri besar?
The question follows Twentytwo13’s report yesterday that certain political leaders had approached Tunku Nadzaruddin Tuanku Ja’afar to appoint the next menteri besar should their coalition emerge victorious in the closely contested state election.
Such a move risks triggering a constitutional standoff, as there remains no clear legal determination of who is the rightful Yang di-Pertuan Besar of Negeri Sembilan – Tuanku Muhriz Tuanku Munawir or Tunku Nadzaruddin.
The current crisis stems from the unprecedented move by four ruling chieftains, known as the Undang Yang Empat, in April to remove Tuanku Muhriz. The Undang Yang Empat and the Tunku Besar Tampin later proclaimed Tunku Nadzaruddin as the 12th Yang di-Pertuan Besar on June 5 at a hotel in Alor Gajah, Melaka.
On April 27, 14 Barisan Nasional assemblymen withdrew their support for Negeri Sembilan menteri besar Datuk Seri Aminuddin Harun of PKR, citing, among other reasons, his administration’s alleged interference in Adat Perpatih and perceived disrespect towards the Undang. The move led to the dissolution of the state assembly and paved the way for the state election.
While uncertainty has persisted for the past three months, constitutional expert Professor Emeritus Datuk Dr Shad Saleem Faruqi believes Tuanku Muhriz’s removal in April was “illegal”, rendering subsequent actions – including the appointment of a new Yang di-Pertuan Besar – legally invalid.
Speaking to Twentytwo13, Shad Saleem said the issue turns on whether Tuanku Muhriz’s removal was constitutionally valid.
“The question of the appointment of the next menteri besar goes back to the issue of whether Tuanku Muhriz is still in office.”
He said Tuanku Muhriz, whose reign began on Dec 29, 2008, was elected Yang di-Pertuan Besar by the Undangs of Sungai Ujong, Jelebu, Johol and Rembau in accordance with Article 7(2) of the Negeri Sembilan Constitution.
The four Undangs, he said, possess the exceptional power to remove a ruler in two ways.
“This can be done by first calling the ruler under Article 10(1)(a) to withdraw temporarily from his position for a period determined by the Undangs.
“Secondly, under Article 10(1)(b), the Undangs can call upon His Highness to abdicate and relinquish his powers, rights and privileges on grounds listed in Article 10(1), namely insanity, blindness, dumbness, any base quality that would disqualify the ruler under Hukum Syarak, or where he has committed any overt act detrimental to the sanctity, honour and dignity of the Ruler or deliberately disregarded the provisions of the Negeri Sembilan Constitution.
“The so-called removal process did not mention any of these grounds.”
Shad Saleem said another issue was that only a lawfully appointed Undang could participate in removing a sitting Yang di-Pertuan Besar.
“We are faced with a situation where one of the Undangs (Datuk Mubarak Dohak of Sungai Ujong) had allegedly been removed from office in accordance with Article 14(3) and the customs of his luak. This was confirmed by the state’s Dewan Keadilan dan Undang on April 17, 2026, under Articles 16(1) and (2) of the Negeri Sembilan Constitution.
“Any Undang who has been lawfully removed from office loses the right to participate in the exercise to remove the Yang di-Pertuan Besar under Article 10.
“Yet this Undang took part in the proceedings to remove Tuanku Muhriz. If an invalid Undang participated in removing the Yang di-Pertuan Besar, then the entire process becomes illegal.”
He added that the proclamation removing the Yang di-Pertuan Besar must also be signed by the menteri besar, which did not happen.
Shad Saleem also said there must be a “full and complete” inquiry to establish that the ruler suffered from any of the defects or disqualifying qualities listed in the Constitution before being asked to abdicate.
“Here the rule of due process applies and the principle of natural justice – the right to answer the charges under the principle of audi alteram partem – must be followed.
“An inquiry was never held. No hearing was given, no reasons were provided and the principles of natural justice were violated.”
On the validity of Tunku Nadzaruddin’s appointment, Shad Saleem said: “If Tuanku Muhriz’s removal is deemed illegal, anything that follows as a result of that removal is also illegal.
“As for the appointment of the state’s menteri besar, the Federal Constitution accords this prerogative to the states and it must be exercised in accordance with the state’s constitution.”
He added that the Federal Government has no constitutional role in resolving the impasse.
“The Federal Government cannot interfere, and the Conference of Rulers has also remained silent.”
Looking ahead, Shad Saleem pointed to Article 130 of the Federal Constitution, which allows the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to refer constitutional questions to the Federal Court for its opinion.
“While the Federal Court cannot determine who is the rightful Yang di-Pertuan Besar, it can decide whether the legal requirements governing the removal were complied with.”
Should the constitutional crisis deepen, Shad Saleem said the Yang di-Pertuan Agong could invoke Article 150 of the Federal Constitution to proclaim a state of emergency in Negeri Sembilan.
“The Prime Minister can advise the Agong, but the Agong has discretion in refusing,” he said.
“However, if an emergency is declared, the Agong can do what is necessary to resolve the crisis during the emergency period, including getting the menteri besar who had asked for the assembly to be dissolved to be the caretaker menteri besar until the matter is resolved,” he said.
