The four purported Undangs of Negeri Sembilan and the Tunku Besar Tampin have defended their attempt to remove Tuanku Muhriz Tuanku Munawir as Yang Dipertuan Besar, claiming the ruler had breached provisions of an 1898 agreement governing the state’s traditional institutions.
In a 12-page statement, the chieftains alleged that Tuanku Muhriz had breached two clauses of the agreement by interfering in the customary affairs of their respective areas and entertaining complaints against Undangs appointed by them.
They also accused the ruler of hearing complaints against Abdul Rahim Yasin, whom they described as the Rembau Undang, from a rival group involved in the Undang election.
The group said this occurred despite the Dewan Keadilan dan Undang (DKU) having confirmed Rahim’s appointment in July 2025. However, the DKU later clarified in August this year that Rahim had never been formally appointed.
The chieftains further claimed that Mubarak Dohak, who maintains that he is the Sungai Ujong Undang, was removed after leading an inquiry into what they described as the ruler’s alleged interference in Rembau.
“Based on these facts, we maintain that Tuanku Muhriz interfered in the customary affairs of Rembau and Sungai Ujong and acted to remove the Undangs of both areas,” they said.
They argued that the 1898 agreement between the Yang Dipertuan Besar and the four Undangs then in office formed the foundation of Negeri Sembilan’s constitutional framework.
According to them, the terms were subsequently repeated and ratified under a 1934 agreement between the ruler and the Undangs at the time.
They also cited Article 32 of the Negeri Sembilan Constitution, which states that the second part of the constitution does not affect the state’s ancient constitution and customary practices.
The dispute began in April when four individuals claiming to be Undangs announced that Tuanku Muhriz had been removed as Yang Dipertuan Besar, without initially disclosing the grounds or evidence for the move.
One of the purported Undangs later proclaimed Tunku Nadzaruddin Tuanku Ja’afar as the “new” Yang Dipertuan Besar at a hotel in Melaka, while the others participated online.
However, the DKU has repeatedly maintained that Tuanku Muhriz remains the rightful Yang Dipertuan Besar. The council has also said three of the four individuals involved were not recognised as Undangs when the purported removal was announced.
The chieftains also accused Tuanku Muhriz of bypassing them by failing to consult them before a Conference of Rulers meeting and before the appointment of the state mufti.
They cited Article 28(2) of the state constitution, which defines the “ruler” as the Yang Dipertuan Besar acting together with a majority of the Undangs when exercising certain discretionary powers under Article 40(2).
Article 40(2) includes the ruler’s discretion in appointing the menteri besar, as well as functions relating to the state’s Islamic affairs and Malay customs.
The purported Undangs therefore argued that the ruler was required to consult them before the Conference of Rulers convened and before the state mufti was appointed.
The constitutional and customary dispute remains contested, with the rival sides maintaining opposing positions over Tuanku Muhriz’s status and the authority of the individuals claiming to be Undangs.
