DKU sangkal dakwaan Tuanku Muhriz campur urusan luak

Dewan Keadilan dan Undang (DKU) Negeri Sembilan rejected allegations that Yang Dipertuan Besar Tuanku Muhriz Tuanku Munawir interfered in the affairs of Sungei Ujong in a hearing on April 17. Raja Norazli Raja Nordin, the deputy secretary of DKU, stated that the hearing was DKU carrying out its function as stipulated by Article 16 UUTKNS, which is to receive and advise on decisions made by the Luak according to tradition.

Tuanku Muhriz was the Yang Dipertua Dewan during the hearing. According to Raja Norazli, the matter brought before DKU at the hearing was the complaint made by the representatives of Telaga Undang Sungei Ujong, Ibu Soko and Waris Klana Hulu. They had dismissed Mubarak Thahak @ Dohak from his undang position according to Luak tradition, through a dismissal letter delivered on May 13, 2025.

Raja Norazli said that Tuanku Muhriz clearly emphasized that the power to choose, appoint, and dismiss undang lies with the Luak itself under Articles 14(1) and (3), and members of the Dewan, including the Yang Dipertua Dewan, do not have the power to support or oppose a Luak decision. Therefore, the Dewan accepted the dismissal as a dismissal made by the Luak according to its own tradition, as stated in the statement.

The Dewan did not dismiss any undang. Tuanku Muhriz did not do so either. The Dewan accepted the Luak's decision to dismiss the Sungei Ujong undang, Raja Norazli said. On October 2, four individuals claiming to be undang of Negeri Sembilan, along with Tunku Besar Tampin, alleged that Tuanku Muhriz violated two articles of the 1898 Agreement due to his interference in adat matters outside the Luak, in addition to handling complaints against undang.

By alleging that Tuanku Muhriz violated provisions of the 1898 Agreement, the group maintained their campaign to reduce the monarch's status. Raja Norazli said that the 1898 Agreement signed on April 29 between the Yang Dipertuan Besar and the Four Undang was an essential part of Negeri Sembilan's constitutional history. However, Raja Norazli explained that the agreement is no longer applicable as the sole source of constitutional rights or powers.

Article 16(1) of UUTKNS expressly requires DKU to provide advice on Malay customary matters referred to it, and failure or delay in doing so constitutes a neglect of its mandate, he added. No historical document can be selectively chosen to meet the requirements of Article 10, he said.