If Tuanku Muhriz is no longer your ruler, quit on principle and honour, DAP dares N Sembilan excos

KUALA LUMPUR, September 17 — Rembau Undang Hassan Ab Hamid has dismissed the Negeri Sembilan Executive Council's stance on dismissing Yang di-Pertuan Besar Tuanku Muhriz Tuanku Munawir, asserting that administrative decisions cannot supersede the state constitution or the Dewan Keadilan dan Undang (DKU) ruling on adat matters. Malaysiakini reported that Undang emphasized the dispute over the April 19 proclamation removing Tuanku Muhriz must be resolved under the Negeri Sembilan constitution, not via administrative decisions or media statements.

He clarified that the core issue is not merely whether the Undang Yang Empat possesses the authority to remove or appoint the Yang di-Pertuan Besar, but whether this power was exercised in adherence to the state constitution's requirements and procedures. "The mere existence of a power does not excuse disregarding the procedure for exercising it," Undang stated in a recent statement.

He questioned whether a thorough inquiry, as mandated, had been carried out prior to the April 19 proclamation. Undang highlighted the DKU's conclusion that no such inquiry occurred and that Tuanku Muhriz was neither notified nor afforded the chance to present his case, which he deemed a critical flaw in the proclamation. This statement followed the executive council's assertion that the proclamation was valid, recognizing Tuanku Nadzaruddin Tuanku Ja’afar as the new ruler with immediate effect.

The council contended that the proclamation was signed and sealed by a legitimate Undang, and that the ruler's removal was the Undang Yang Empat's exclusive prerogative. Undang also referenced DKU decisions from July 31 and September 13, affirming that the April 19 proclamation was invalid and that Tuanku Muhriz continued to be the Yang di-Pertuan Besar.

He stressed that Article 16(3) of the state constitution declares the DKU's advice on Malay adat matters final and unchallengeable in court. Consequently, Undang argued, an executive council decision could not dispute the DKU's adat determination or override the provisions of the state constitution. Additionally, Undang contested the executive council's claim that the proclamation was signed by "legitimate and duly serving Undangs," contending that this contradicted the DKU's determination regarding the adat status of three of the four signatories.