Constitutional legitimacy cannot be displaced without due process — Syed Hamid Albar

Tuanku Muhriz was lawfully appointed as the Yang di-Pertuan Besar of Negeri Sembilan, and his removal must follow a constitutional process as outlined in Article 10.

Serious doubts exist regarding whether the proper procedures and constitutional safeguards were followed in the purported removal process, necessitating restraint from political or administrative actions until resolved.

The final decision on the legality of the removal should be made by a competent judicial forum to ensure adherence to constitutional conditions and due process.

SEPTEMBER 23 — The present impasse in Negeri Sembilan must begin with one fundamental fact: Tuanku Muhriz ibni Almarhum Tuanku Munawir was duly elected, installed and recognised as the Yang di-Pertuan Besar of Negeri Sembilan.

His position cannot be displaced merely because it has subsequently been challenged. A lawful constitutional appointment continues until it is brought to an end through an equally lawful constitutional process.

The principal question is therefore not whether competing parties have made rival claims to the throne. It is whether the purported removal of the incumbent Yang di-Pertuan Besar was undertaken in strict compliance with Article 10 of the Laws of the Constitution of Negeri Sembilan 1959.

Article 10 does not confer an unrestricted or arbitrary power of removal. It prescribes particular grounds and requires a full and complete inquiry by the lawfully constituted Undangs. Where the Constitution also requires the concurrence of the Menteri Besar, that concurrence must be genuine, voluntary and lawfully given.

These are substantive constitutional safeguards, not procedural formalities.

A full and complete inquiry must necessarily involve an examination of the allegations and supporting evidence. It must also satisfy the requirements of procedural fairness. The person whose constitutional position is at stake should know the case against him and be afforded a meaningful opportunity to answer it.

Several important questions therefore require authoritative determination:

Was a full and complete inquiry conducted before the proclamation was issued?

Was Tuanku Muhriz informed of the precise allegations and evidence against him?

Was he given a proper opportunity to respond?

Was the body making the decision lawfully constituted, and did every participant possess the legal authority to act?

Were the grounds specified under Article 10 established?

Was every required concurrence, including that of the Menteri Besar, freely and validly obtained?

These matters cannot be answered through political declarations or competing media statements. They must be established from the relevant notices, minutes, evidence, constitutional instruments and official records.

The burden must rest upon those asserting that the incumbent was lawfully removed. Until strict compliance with Article 10 is established, the duly installed incumbent cannot simply be treated as having lost his constitutional position.

Neither can a subsequent appointment cure an invalid removal. The appointment of a successor necessarily depends upon the prior existence of a lawful vacancy. If the removal of the incumbent was constitutionally defective, any purported succession founded upon that removal would likewise lack a valid constitutional foundation.

This is therefore not, at the outset, a contest between two claimants possessing equal constitutional standing. There was an existing and duly constituted Yang di-Pertuan Besar. The legality of the attempt to remove him must first be established before any question of lawful succession can arise.

Adat remains central to the distinctive constitutional identity of Negeri Sembilan. But where adat has been incorporated into a written Constitution, customary authority must be exercised consistently with that Constitution. Adat cannot be selectively invoked to avoid express constitutional safeguards, just as written law should not be interpreted without regard to the authentic adat from which these institutions derive their legitimacy.

On the facts presently made public, there are serious and unresolved doubts as to whether the requirements of due process were satisfied. It would therefore be unsafe and constitutionally improper for any political or administrative body to treat the validity of the purported removal as conclusively settled.

All parties should exercise restraint and refrain from taking further unilateral steps capable of prejudicing the final determination. The administration of Negeri Sembilan must continue according to law, without allowing the dispute to be converted into an instrument of political advantage.

The proper course is to place all relevant evidence before the competent judicial forum for an authoritative determination of the legality of the process. The court need not decide the wisdom of a customary decision. It must, however, be able to determine whether the body concerned possessed lawful authority, whether the constitutional conditions were fulfilled and whether the prescribed process was observed.

The dignity of the throne, the standing of the Undangs and public confidence in the State Government depend upon fidelity to the Constitution.

In a constitutional monarchy, power alone cannot create legitimacy. Legitimacy rests upon lawful authority, properly constituted institutions and due process faithfully observed.

* Tan Sri Syed Hamid Albar previously served as Malaysia’s foreign, home and law minister.

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

Why Malaysia should convene, not just contribute to, Brics and Islamic finance — Ashurov Sharofiddin and Mohd Zaidi Md Zabri

The value of a university in the AI era — Jazli Aziz

The power to suspend lies in the authority who has the power to appoint — Hafiz Hassan

UUCA replacement Bill expected to be tabled in December, says Zambry

ADB raises Malaysia’s 2026, 2027 growth forecasts to 4.9pc, 4.7pc

SPR: Postal voting applications for Melaka polls open today

端姑慕里兹被合法任命为森美兰州元首，其免职必须遵循第 10 条规定的宪法程序。

人们对所谓的驱逐程序是否遵循了适当的程序和宪法保障存在严重怀疑，因此在问题解决之前，有必要避免采取政治或行政行动。

最终决定驱逐是否合法应由有管辖权的司法机构作出，以确保符合宪法条件和正当程序。

9 月 23 日 — 森美兰州目前的僵局必须从一个基本事实开始：端姑穆赫里兹·伊布尼·阿尔玛胡姆·端姑穆纳维尔 (Tuanku Muhriz ibni Almarhum Tuanku Munawir) 正式当选、就职并被承认为森美兰州国家元首。

即使他的职位随后受到质疑，也不能因此而被撤销。一项合法的宪法任命，除非通过同样合法的宪法程序终止，否则将继续有效。

因此，主要问题不在于各竞争政党是否对王位提出了相互竞争的主张，而在于所谓罢免现任最高元首的行为是否严格遵守了1959年森美兰州宪法第10条的规定。

第十条并未赋予任何不受限制或任意的罢免权。它规定了具体理由，并要求由依法成立的委员会进行全面彻底的调查。宪法还要求须经州务大臣同意，而该同意必须是真诚的、自愿的且合法的。

这些是实质性的宪法保障措施，而不是程序上的形式主义。

全面彻底的调查必然包括对指控及其佐证的审查，并且必须符合程序公正的要求。宪法地位受到威胁的人应当了解针对他的指控，并被给予充分的答辩机会。

因此，有几个重要问题需要权威机构予以裁定：

在发布公告之前是否进行了全面彻底的调查？

端姑慕赫里兹是否被告知针对他的具体指控和证据？

他是否获得了充分的回应机会？

做出决定的机构是否合法成立？每位参与者是否都拥有合法的行动权限？

第十条规定的理由是否成立？

是否已自由、合法地取得所有必要的同意，包括州务大臣的同意？

这些问题无法通过政治宣言或相互矛盾的媒体声明来解决，必须依据相关通知、会议记录、证据、宪法文件和官方档案来查明。

举证责任必须在于主张现任官员被合法罢免的一方。在严格遵守第十条规定得到证实之前，不能简单地将合法就职的现任官员视为丧失了其宪法地位。

后续任命也无法弥补无效的免职。继任者的任命必然取决于此前是否存在合法的职位空缺。如果对现任者的免职在宪法上存在缺陷，那么任何基于该免职而进行的所谓继任，同样也缺乏有效的宪法依据。

因此，这并非一开始就是两位拥有同等宪法地位的继承人之间的争夺。当时已存在一位合法有效的最高元首（Yang di-Pertuan Besar）。在确定合法继承权问题之前，必须首先确定罢免他的企图是否合法。

习俗（Adat）仍然是森美兰州独特宪政身份的核心。但当习俗被纳入成文宪法时，习惯法的行使必须与宪法保持一致。习俗不能被选择性地援引以规避明确的宪法保障，正如成文法的解释也不应脱离其合法性所依据的习俗一样。

根据目前已公开的事实，对于正当程序是否得到满足仍存在严重且尚未解决的疑问。因此，任何政治或行政机构若将所谓的驱逐令的合法性视为最终定论，都是不安全且不符合宪法的。

各方应保持克制，避免采取任何可能妨碍最终裁决的单方面行动。森美兰州的行政管理必须依法进行，不得将争端转化为谋取政治利益的工具。

正确的做法是将所有相关证据提交给有管辖权的司法机构，由其权威地裁定该程序的合法性。法院无需评判习惯法决定的合理性，但必须能够确定有关机构是否拥有合法权限、是否符合宪法条件以及是否遵守了既定程序。

王位的尊严、Undangs的地位以及公众对邦政府的信任都取决于对宪法的忠诚。

在君主立宪制国家，权力本身并不能创造合法性。合法性建立在合法权威、适当设立的机构和严格遵守的正当程序之上。

* 丹斯里赛哈密·阿尔巴尔曾任马来西亚外交部长、内政部长和法律部长。

**本文仅代表作者或刊物个人观点，并不一定代表《马来邮报》的立场。

为什么马来西亚应该参与金砖国家和伊斯兰金融的筹备工作，而不仅仅是贡献力量——阿舒罗夫·沙罗菲丁和莫哈末·扎伊迪·莫哈末·扎布里

人工智能时代大学的价值——Jazli Aziz

暂停职务的权力属于有权任命的当局——哈菲兹·哈桑

赞布里表示，UUCA替代法案预计将于12月提交。

亚洲开发银行将马来西亚2026年和2027年的经济增长预期分别上调至4.9%和4.7%。

新加坡人民共和国通讯社：马六甲州选举邮寄投票申请今日开放