There’s risk of Emergency by Agong for six months before fresh polls, in any case the civilisational and constitutional issues would not end!
By Joe Fernandez
Commentary And Analysis . . . Negeri Sembilan was test of the rule of law. It’s test of whether the courts can resolve disputes rooted in adat and royal succession. It’s test of whether the rule of law applies equally for all, including traditional officeholders.
(https://jesseltontimes.com/2026/07/31/negeri-sembilan-election-will-not-end-the-constitutional-crisis/)
The Court of Appeal must now answer one question: Does Article 121(1) of the Federal Constitution give the civil courts power over the DKU?
The DKU has now ruled that the April 19 proclamation was unconstitutional. The legal position of Tuanku Muhriz has been strengthened. But the core jurisdictional question remains unresolved.
Until it’s resolved, the names will stay in the headlines. The faces will stay on TV. And the people will remember only that “something happened in Negeri Sembilan.”
But they will not remember what the law decided. Because the law has not decided.
Closure requires judgment. Not stay. Not press statement. Not election. A judgment.
“The truth, once it emerges, cannot be hidden.”
The truth was that the Negeri Sembilan palace was constitutional crisis that an election cannot resolve. The truth was that the courts must decide the jurisdictional question. The truth was that the rule of law requires closure.
This truth must not be hidden. It must be addressed. And the rule of law must be upheld before the Federal Government was forced into declaring emergency.
Human beings can forget anything after two weeks. All they remember are names and faces. Nothing becomes an issue unless it’s in the media. If an issue does not go away in two weeks, it becomes controversy.
Controversies will not end unless there was closure.
The 16th Negeri Sembilan state election has delivered seismic political shift.
Barisan Nasional (BN) and Perikatan Nasional (PN) have secured two-thirds majority, winning 25 of the 36 seats.
BN chairman Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi confirmed the unofficial results showed BN had won 18 seats while PN secured seven, giving the two coalitions combined majority on formiing the state administration.
Umno secretary-general Datuk Dr Asyraf Wajdi Dusuki claimed the alliance won all Malay-majority seats.
A new government will be formed. A new Menteri Besar (MB) will be appointed.
But who will swear in the MB? And what happens if the person who should perform the ceremony refuses?
Who Appoints the MB?
Under the Negeri Sembilan State Constitution, the MB was appointed by the Yang di-Pertuan Besar (YDPB), the state ruler. The YDPB exercises discretion in this appointment. But the identity of the YDPB was itself the subject of bitter dispute.
The current crisis has produced two claimants for the throne:
Tuanku Muhriz Tuanku Munawir: Recognised by the federal government, the Attorney General, and the previous state government.
Tunku Datuk Seri Nazaruddin Tuanku Jaafar: Proclaimed by the four Undang on 19 April 2026 as the new ruler, backdated for 13 May 2025.
The palace has not recognised the proclamation.
The Comptroller of the Palace declared that the title Tunku Nazaruddin sought on assuming “carries no legal effect”.
The state government has not recognised it.
Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim also said that Tuanku Muhriz remained the recognised Yang di-Pertuan Besar of Negeri Sembilan.
The fundamental question: before whom does the new MB swear allegiance?
Lawyer Rafique Rashid Ali has stated unequivocally that the new MB should be sworn in before Tuanku Muhriz.
He said that despite the dispute over the Yang di-Pertuan Besar, the current legal position remained unchanged arising from an injunction granted by the Seremban High Court.
To swear in new MB before Tuanku Nazaruddin would be direct challenge for the legal status quo and would likely constitute contempt of court.
Constitutional law expert Professor Shad Saleem Faruqi has weighed in on the validity of Tunku Nazaruddin’s appointment: “If Tuanku Muhriz’s removal was deemed illegal, anything that follows as result of that removal was also illegal”.
This was critical legal principle.
If the Undang acted beyond their constitutional authority in removing Tuanku Muhriz, then their proclamation of new ruler was nullity.
Undang No Longer Valid
On 1 August 2026—election day itself—the Dewan Keadilan dan Undang (DKU) delivered bombshell ruling.
The DKU formally recognised two newly installed Undang and declared three individuals who claimed the titles of Undang Sungei Ujong as invalid.
The DKU further ruled that the public announcement dated 19 April 2026—the proclamation of Tunku Nazaruddin—was unconstitutional and in violation of Article X of the Negeri Sembilan Constitution, rendering it null and without effect.
This was significant development. The DKU’s ruling effectively means that three of the four Undang who declared Tuanku Muhriz’s removal were no longer valid ruling chiefs when they did so. If the Undang who proclaimed the new ruler lacked the legal authority on doing so, then the proclamation itself was invalid.
This strengthens the legal position of Tuanku Muhriz and weakens the claim of Tunku Nazaruddin. The DKU has effectively confirmed that the April 19 proclamation was unconstitutional.
Court May Not Rule in Time
The Court of Appeal has granted stay of committal proceedings pending an early hearing on jurisdiction. But the court has not yet decided the core question: Does the civil court have jurisdiction over adat and royal succession?
Constitutional expert Nik Ahmad has noted that this dispute will not resolve itself and that “it’s best for the constitutional and legal issues decided by the court”.
But the court may not rule in time. The political reality demands the immediate formation of a new government. The MB must be appointed.
The swearing-in ceremony must proceed.
The court cannot produce judgment quickly enough on resolving the question before the appointment was made.
This creates legal vacuum. The MB may be sworn in before one claimant. The other claimant will declare the swearing-in invalid.
The crisis will escalate.
Risk of Emergency
This was the scenario that legal experts have warned about.
Constitutional expert Aziz Bari has stated that emergency powers may be needed on resolving the Negeri Sembilan impasse.
Under Article 150 of the Federal Constitution, the Agong may issue Proclamation of Emergency if satisfied that “a grave emergency exists whereby the security, or the economic life, or public order in the Federation or any part thereof was threatened”.
Under Article 150(4), while Proclamation of Emergency was in force, “the executive authority of the Federation shall, notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, extend on any matter within the legislative authority of State and the giving of directions for the Government of State or any officer or authority thereof”.
This means the federal government can assume control of state affairs, appoint a Director of Operations, and even amend the state constitution on resolving the crisis.
The emergency scenario was not hypothetical. If the MB wasbsworn in before the “wrong” ruler, or if the swearing-in was disputed, the federal government may have no choice but to intervene.
The Court of Appeal has already ruled that emergency proclamations issued by the Agong are not subject for judicial review under the Federal Constitution.
Article 150(8) effectively places emergency declarations beyond the jurisdiction of the courts. This means that if the Agong declares an emergency, the courts cannot question it.
The emergency would last for six months, after which fresh state election would be held.
BN Would Not Win
BN—the coalition that has just won a two-thirds majority—would not win fresh election held after federal emergency.
This remains strategic insight:
Voter backlash: The electorate would resent the federal government overturning their democratic choice. BN/PN, the beneficiaries of that choice, would be tainted by association.
Malay solidarity was not monolithic: While BN/PN won all Malay-majority seats, Malay voters are not single bloc. They can split.
The “victim” narrative: BN/PN could portray itself as the victim of federal interference, but this narrative would also alienate moderate voters.
The federal government would not risk this outcome. Therefore, it will hesitate on declaring an emergency but it may have no choice if the constitutional crisis paralyses the state administration.
Civilisational Values and Constitution
The clash of civilisational values and the Constitution would continue. This was profound insight.
The Negeri Sembilan saga was not merely political dispute.
It is a collision between:
Adat Perpatih: The customary law that has governed Negeri Sembilan for centuries. The Undang derive their authority from this tradition. One analysis notes that “the authority of the Undang Yang Empat predates the institutionalisation of the modern Yang di-Pertuan Besar”.
The Federal Constitution: The written, codified law that governs Malaysia.
The courts derive their authority from this document.
Whatever may be the adat on removing the YDPB, the State Constitution was clear and explicit that there must be a “full and complete enquiry by the Undangs” and that there must be the concurrence of the Menteri Besar for a proclamation that His Highness “ceases on exercising the functions and powers of Ruler of the State”.
The conflict will not end with an election. It will not end with an emergency declaration. It will not end with court ruling. The court’s ruling will not settle the underlying tension between adat and constitutional law.
This was civilisational conflict. It’s conflict between tradition and modernity, between customary law and written law, between the authority of the Undang and the authority of the courts.
Problem of Closure
Human beings can forget anything after two weeks. All they remember are names and faces.
The names—Tuanku Muhriz, Tuanku Nazaruddin, the incoming MB—will remain in the public eye. The faces—the Undang in full regalia, the MB in official attire—will remain in the media.
But the underlying issues will not be resolved by media coverage. The clash between adat and the Constitution will continue. The dispute over the throne will not disappear. The tension between federal and state governments will not be resolved by press conference.
Closure requires judgment. Not stay. Not press statement. Not election. A judgment. — TJT
Longtime Borneo watcher Joe Fernandez has been writing for many years on both sides of the Southeast Asia Sea. He should not be mistaken for a namesake formerly with the Daily Express in Kota Kinabalu. JF keeps a Blog under FernzTheGreat, as jurist (legal scholar), on the nature of human relationships.
He was also the former Sabah Correspondent for Malaysiakini.com.
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of Jesselton Times.
