From ‘Anak Nogori’
The April 19 declaration by the three undangs and former Sungei Ujong undang Mubarak Dohak to remove Tuanku Muhriz Tuanku Munawir as the Yang di-Pertuan Besar was declared invalid on two separate and independent grounds.
The declaration was constitutionally invalid because Mubarak had already been removed from his position as undang by the Dewan Keadilan dan Undang (DKU) on April 17 under Article 14(3) of the Negeri Sembilan Constitution 1959, with his removal having originally taken effect from May 13, 2025.
Under Article 16, DKU decisions are final and cannot be challenged in any court.
The declaration was also invalid under Adat Perpatih because the Ibu Soko Klana Hulu and Anak Waris Klana Hulu explicitly gave no mandate for it.
But what happens if the Ibu Soko is ignored?
The recent events have pitched the legitimacy of Adat Perpatih against constitutional and political manoeuvring.
In open defiance of the DKU’s decision and Ibu Soko’s withdrawal of consent, Mubarak continues to insist that his removal was invalid and that the appointment of Faris Johari as the new Ujong undang carries no legitimacy.
He has taken the matter to court, demanding access to the minutes of the DKU special sitting on April 17: the very body whose decisions are deemed final and unchallengeable in court according to Article 16 of the state constitution.
The Ibu Soko Tua of Rembau has also publicly questioned the consensus behind the appointment of the area’s 22nd undangs.
It is the first time in modern Negeri Sembilan that Adat and modern institutions have collided this directly.
Now, Article 32 of the Negeri Sembilan constitution states that the First Part of the constitution does not generally affect “Adat”, and that ancient customs continue to apply where they are consistent with the constitution.
The operative word is consistent. “Adat” and the written constitution have, in the past, existed in a relationship of mutual dependence, each drawing legitimacy from its coexistence with the other.
But Article 32 carries an implicit hierarchy. If “Adat” is found to be inconsistent with the constitution, the constitution prevails. No one has ever definitively mapped where that line falls.
Mubarak’s court action is, in effect, an attempt to force that mapping in his favour, using the constitutional framework to argue that the “Adat” process that removed him was itself invalid.
When actors within the system choose to treat one as subordinate to the other, or selectively invoke whichever framework is more convenient at a given moment, they place that relationship under strain.
Legal scholars have noted that the current crisis is the first time in modern Negeri Sembilan that the two systems have collided in this way.
Ikmal Hisham Tah of UiTM’s law faculty warned that the impasse risks affecting the position of “Adat” in modern times beyond the immediate dispute, and that prolonged uncertainty could erode public confidence in both frameworks simultaneously.
If the DKU and the role of Ibu Soko are treated as optional, or politically inconvenient, the living “Adat” system loses its primary mechanism for self-regulation.
The system then becomes a set of forms without substance, titles without consent, positions without legitimacy.
The deeper question this crisis poses is not whether Tuanku Muhriz remains as the Yang di-Pertuan Besar.
It is whether the current actions of the undangs succeed at the expense of Adat Perpatih, or if “Adat” prevails over them.
‘Anak Nogori’ is an FMT reader from Negeri Sembilan.
The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.