DKU calls on police, AG to investigate, prosecute those who challenged Tuanku Muhriz’s position

DKU calls on police, AG to investigate, prosecute those who challenged Tuanku Muhriz’s position


In a strongly worded statement today, the DKU reaffirmed its position that Tuanku Muhriz remains the legitimate ruler and said the various documents issued by a rival group did not affect his constitutional position

Updated 41 seconds ago · Published on 04 Oct 2026 8:16PM

Tuanku Muhriz officiating the installation Muhammad Faris Johari, 28, as the 11th Undang of Luak Sungei Ujong - Filepix, October 4, 2026


by Alfian Z.M. Tahir


THE Dewan Keadilan dan Undang (DKU) Negeri Sembilan has called on the police and the Attorney-General’s Chambers to investigate and prosecute those it alleges committed criminal offences in challenging Tuanku Muhriz Tuanku Munawir’s position as the Yang di-Pertuan Besar.

In a strongly worded statement today, the DKU reaffirmed its position that Tuanku Muhriz remains the legitimate ruler and said the various documents issued by a rival group did not affect his constitutional position.

The 17-page statement is the DKU’s most comprehensive response yet to the dispute, which centres on a purported April 19 proclamation seeking to remove Tuanku Muhriz and subsequent attempts to give effect to it.

The DKU said the April 19 document failed to meet 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 step down.

It said there was no record of such an enquiry having taken place.

According to the DKU, records of its March 5 sitting contain no reference to an investigation concerning Tuanku Muhriz’s position. It said the ruler was not notified of any such investigation or allowed to respond.

The DKU said the rival group’s own account of the March 5 proceedings, which referred to three questions being put to Tuanku Muhriz followed by 45 days, did not satisfy the constitutional requirement.

“Time passing is not an enquiry,” it said.

The DKU also challenged the validity of the April 19 document on the basis that several of those who signed it as Undangs were no longer legally recognised as holding those positions.

It said its decisions on matters concerning the appointment, removal or vacation of office of the Ruling Chiefs were final under Article 16(3) of the state Constitution.

On that basis, the DKU said the constitutional requirement concerning the number of Undangs needed to exercise the power under Article 10 had not been met.

It also rejected the subsequent signing of the purported proclamation by Menteri Besar Datuk Ismail Lasim on August 3.

The DKU said Datuk Seri Aminuddin Harun, who was Menteri Besar when the document was presented in April, had refused to sign it on April 20.

It said Article 10 required the proclamation to be issued as soon as possible after the purported decision and to carry the signatures of the Undangs and Menteri Besar.

Ismail was not Menteri Besar on April 19 and was not present when the document was signed, the DKU said.

His signature more than three months later therefore could not revive a process that had already lapsed, it argued.

The DKU also pointed to what it described as a contradiction in the rival group’s position: that Tuanku Muhriz ceased to be ruler on April 19, while the process was only purportedly completed on August 3 when Ismail signed the document.

It said both positions could not stand together.

The statement also cited several events after April 19 involving Tuanku Muhriz and Ismail.

Tuanku Muhriz dissolved the Negeri Sembilan legislative assembly on June 5, while Ismail was sworn in as Menteri Besar before Tuanku Muhriz on August 2, a day after the state election.

Ten state executive councillors subsequently took their oaths of office and allegiance before Tuanku Muhriz at Istana Besar Seri Menanti.

The DKU said Ismail also attended its August 20 sitting, chaired by Tuanku Muhriz, where he briefed members on developments in the state.

The DKU said these events were inconsistent with the rival group’s contention that Tuanku Muhriz had ceased to hold office on April 19.

The DKU also rejected the validity of a gathering held on September 5 and described by the rival group as a “special sitting”.

It said there was only one Dewan Keadilan dan Undang under the state Constitution and that the September 5 gathering had not been convened with Tuanku Muhriz’s consent or through the DKU secretary.

It therefore did not constitute a sitting of the constitutional body, the DKU said.

The gathering also took place while an interim injunction issued by the High Court on June 5 remained in force, it added.

The injunction had barred the plaintiffs in the proceedings, who include individuals behind the disputed documents, from holding or participating in meetings purporting to be meetings of the DKU and from taking steps that could alter the status quo concerning its administration and affairs.

The DKU also rejected two letters dated September 30 and described as “warkah”, which were sent to the Chief Secretary to the Government and the Attorney-General.

The letters sought, among other things, federal intervention over the position of the State Secretary and called for documents issued in the name of Tuanku Muhriz not to be given effect without the group’s approval.

The DKU said the individuals who signed the letters had no constitutional authority to issue such instructions.

Act of Treason

It described the letters as an act of “derhaka” (treason) and said they could potentially amount to criminal offences under the Penal Code.

The DKU further warned state and federal civil servants against acting on instructions from individuals whose claims to authority were disputed.

It said public officers were bound by the state and federal constitutions, the law, court orders and the lawful chain of command.

The council reaffirmed its July 31 decision that the April 19 document did not comply with Article 10, was unconstitutional and had no effect.

It said Tuanku Muhriz remained Yang di-Pertuan Besar and chairman of the Dewan, and that there was no vacancy in the office.

The DKU also rejected the suggestion that Negeri Sembilan has a collective or multiple Rulers comprising the Yang di-Pertuan Besar and the Ruling Chiefs.

It pointed to 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.

It urged anyone maintaining that a “full and complete enquiry” had been conducted under Article 10 to produce the complete records before a forum with jurisdiction to determine the matter.

The DKU said matters concerning its April 17 sitting were already before the High Court and that it would address them through the legal process.

It called on the federal and state governments, civil servants and the public not to give effect to the disputed documents dated April 19, September 5 and October 2, or the September 30 letters based on them. – October 4, 2026

👍👍👍😂😂😂👍👍👍