An assault on the constitutional sovereignty of the Negeri Sembilan monarchy and the rule of law — Ten former presidents of the Malaysian Bar

The article reports on the alleged unlawful removal of Tuanku Muhriz Tuanku Munawir, the Yang di-Pertuan Besar of Negeri Sembilan, by the Negeri Sembilan State Executive Council, which is deemed a violation of the state's constitution.

The removal process did not adhere to due process as outlined by Article 10 of the Laws of the Constitution of Negeri Sembilan 1959, and the purported proclamation of removal sparked questions of legality and propriety.

Former presidents of the Malaysian Bar have condemned the Exco's actions, calling for a halt to the assault on constitutional sovereignty and urging adherence to the rule of law to preserve the integrity of the constitutional monarchy.

SEPTEMBER 21 — We are a country of laws. Yet several events of the past few days have wrought chaos upon the sanctity of the rule of law and the institutions established under the Federal Constitution.

On September 16, 2026, Malaysians were shocked by the news that the Yang di-Pertuan Besar of Negeri Sembilan, Tuanku Muhriz Tuanku Munawir, had purportedly been deposed unilaterally and unceremoniously by the Negeri Sembilan State Executive Council (exco), without any stated grounds, due process, or enquiry.

The reported conduct of the exco is an egregious violation of the Laws of the Constitution of Negeri Sembilan 1959 (LCNS 1959), and a direct and unlawful assault on the institution of the constitutional monarchy.

The removal of a reigning constitutional sovereign is an extraordinary measure of the gravest constitutional consequence. Political expediency, backroom manoeuvres, and unilateral executive decrees can never be a substitute for due process. In Negeri Sembilan, that removal process is strictly governed by Article 10 of LCNS 1959, which stipulates three conditions.

The first condition for initiating the removal of the Ruler is the holding of a “full and complete enquiry by the Undangs” to establish whether valid and sufficient grounds exist for such an extraordinary course of action. Based on media reports, there has been no evidence that any enquiry was ever conducted. No charges or grounds of misconduct have ever been made known to the public. Most crucially, it appears that His Royal Highness was never notified of any allegations, let alone afforded the elementary right to be heard.

Attempts by the exco to assert that an enquiry was held do not stand up to scrutiny, having been advanced only belatedly and without any explanation as to whether His Royal Highness was notified or given any opportunity to be heard. In any event, such an alleged enquiry cannot constitute the “full and complete enquiry by the Undangs” required under Article 10(1) of LCNS 1959.

The second and third conditions stipulate that a proclamation must be executed “under the hands of the Undangs and the Menteri Besar”. Serious questions arise as to the validity, propriety, and legality of the purported Proclamation dated April 19, 2026, which has been denounced by the former Menteri Besar Datuk Seri Aminuddin Harun; and disavowed by the current Menteri Besar Datuk Ismail Lasim, who has stated that he signed it under duress, and in respect of which he has lodged a police report. Further, if the purported proclamation is dated April 19, 2026 but was signed by this Menteri Besar only on August 3, 2026, this raises a fundamental question as to its validity, given that he was not the Menteri Besar on April 19, 2026.

The exco’s announcement on September 16, 2026 smacks of blatant executive overreach. The exco possesses no constitutional mandate, jurisdiction, or power to unseat a ruler. Any such unilateral pronouncement is an ultra vires act that strikes at the very foundation of the constitutional order.

It is noteworthy that the invalidity of the proclamation has been affirmed by the Dewan Keadilan dan Undang and, separately, by the Attorney General’s Chambers. The State Secretary’s Office has likewise concurred with the latter’s position and declined to proceed with the gazettement of the purported proclamation.

We, the undersigned, call for an immediate and complete halt to this assault on the constitutional sovereignty of the Negeri Sembilan monarchy and the rule of law. We strongly urge the state government of Negeri Sembilan, all public officials, and all citizens of Malaysia to faithfully uphold the Federal Constitution and the Laws of the Constitution of Negeri Sembilan 1959, preserve the rule of law, and fully respect the sovereignty and constitutional standing of Tuanku Muhriz Tuanku Munawir as the sole, lawful, and reigning Yang di-Pertuan Besar of Negeri Sembilan.

The exco is not above the law, and its unlawful conduct in this matter must be curbed.

We call on the Federal Government to step in and finally resolve these troubling issues. This state of affairs sets a dangerous precedent for the constitutional monarchy and the future of this country — a country that must, at all times, chart its course strictly in accordance with the law.

Such unbecoming and undignified conduct, as well as such utter disrespect for the law, must stop.

* Former presidents of the Malaysian Bar: Mah Weng Kwai, Kuthubul Zaman Bukhari, Yeo Yang Poh, Ambiga Sreenevasan, Ragunath Kesavan, Lim Chee Wee, Christopher Leong, George Varughese, Salim Bashir, and Karen Cheah Yee Lynn.

** This is the personal opinion of the writers or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail .

Does the AG share the view that a house arrest order is not capable of execution, there being no legal provision in Malaysia? — Hafiz Hassan

The blue shirt I never wore — Ng Kwan Hoong

Not every act of violence is terrorism — Haezreena Begum Abdul Hamid

Kulim man charged with murder after allegedly killing wife in fit of jealousy

Negeri Sembilan MB says Yamtuan can’t dismiss excos without his advice, insists current line-up still valid

Ex‑TH Properties deputy GM pleads not guilty to abetting RM14,000 CBT case

该文章报道了森美兰州行政委员会涉嫌非法罢免森美兰州最高行政长端姑穆里兹的行为，此举被视为违反了州宪法。

此次驱逐程序没有遵守森美兰州 1959 年宪法第 10 条规定的正当程序，所谓的驱逐公告引发了人们对合法性和适当性的质疑。

马来西亚律师公会前任主席们谴责了行政议会的行为，呼吁停止对宪政主权的攻击，并敦促坚持法治以维护君主立宪制的完整性。

9月21日——我们是一个法治国家。然而，过去几天发生的几起事件却破坏了法治的神圣性以及联邦宪法下建立的各项制度。

2026 年 9 月 16 日，马来西亚人震惊于森美兰州最高大臣端姑穆赫里兹端姑穆纳维尔 (Tuanku Muhriz Tuanku Munawir) 据称被森美兰州执行委员会 (exco) 单方面、毫不客气地罢黜，没有任何明确的理由、正当程序或调查。

据报道，执政委员会的行为严重违反了 1959 年森美兰州宪法（LCNS 1959），是对君主立宪制制度的直接非法攻击。

罢免在位宪政君主是一项非常规措施，其后果将极其严重地触犯宪法。政治权宜之计、幕后操纵和单方面行政命令绝不能取代正当程序。在森美兰州，罢免程序严格遵循1959年《国家宪章》第十条的规定，该条规定了三项条件。

罢免统治者的首要条件是，由地方议会进行“全面彻底的调查”，以确定是否存在采取这种非常规行动的充分正当理由。根据媒体报道，没有任何证据表明曾进行过任何调查。公众也从未被告知任何指控或不当行为的理由。最关键的是，殿下似乎从未被告知任何指控，更遑论享有最基本的申辩权。

行政委员会声称已进行调查的说法经不起推敲，因为这一说法提出得太晚，而且没有解释是否通知过殿下或是否给予其任何申辩机会。无论如何，这种所谓的调查不能构成1959年《国家宪章》第10(1)条所要求的“由议会进行的全面彻底调查”。

第二和第三项条件规定，公告必须“由州务大臣和州务大臣签署”。这份据称日期为2026年4月19日的公告的有效性、适当性和合法性引发了严重质疑。前州务大臣拿督斯里阿明努丁·哈伦已公开谴责该公告；现任州务大臣拿督伊斯迈·拉西姆也否认了该公告，并声称他是在胁迫下签署的，且已就此事向警方报案。此外，如果这份所谓的公告日期为2026年4月19日，但现任州务大臣却在2026年8月3日才签署，鉴于他在2026年4月19日并非州务大臣，这将引发关于其有效性的根本性问题。

2026年9月16日，行政委员会的公告明显带有行政权力越权的意味。行政委员会既无宪法授权，也无管辖权或权力罢免执政者。任何此类单方面声明都是越权行为，动摇了宪政秩序的根基。

值得注意的是，菲律宾公正与法律委员会和总检察署均已确认该公告无效。国务秘书办公室也赞同总检察署的立场，并拒绝继续推进该所谓公告的刊登工作。

我们，以下署名人，呼吁立即彻底停止对森美兰州君主制宪政主权和法治的攻击。我们强烈敦促森美兰州政府、所有公职人员和所有马来西亚公民忠实维护联邦宪法和1959年森美兰州宪法，维护法治，并充分尊重端姑慕赫里兹·端姑慕纳维尔作为森美兰州唯一合法在位君主的主权和宪政地位。

执行委员会并非凌驾于法律之上，其在此事上的违法行为必须予以制止。

我们呼吁联邦政府介入，彻底解决这些棘手的问题。这种局面为君主立宪制和国家的未来树立了一个危险的先例——这个国家必须始终严格依法行事。

这种有失体统、有失尊严的行为，以及这种对法律的彻底蔑视，必须停止。

* 马来西亚律师协会前主席：Mah Weng Kwai、Kuthubul Zaman Bukhari、Yeo Yang Poh、Ambiga Sreenevasan、Ragunath Kesavan、Lim Chee Wee、Christopher Leong、George Varughese、Salim Bashir 和 Karen Cheah Yee Lynn。

**本文仅代表作者或出版方的个人观点，并不一定代表《马来邮报》的观点。

总检察长是否也认为，由于马来西亚没有相关法律规定，软禁令无法执行？——哈菲兹·哈桑

我从未穿过的蓝色衬衫——Ng Kwan Hoong

并非所有暴力行为都是恐怖主义——海兹丽娜·贝古姆·阿卜杜勒·哈米德

居林男子因涉嫌嫉妒杀害妻子被控谋杀

森美兰州务大臣表示，Yamtuan 未经他同意不得解散行政委员会，并坚称目前的委员会阵容仍然有效。

前TH Properties副总经理对教唆14000令吉刑事审判案拒不不认罪