The Malaysian Bar says the purported April 19, 2026 proclamation to remove Tuanku Muhriz, rejected by the AGC, failed one or more constitutional requirements.
KUALA LUMPUR: The purported proclamation dated April 19, 2026 to remove Tuanku Muhriz Tuanku Munawir, which had been rejected by the Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC), failed to meet one or more constitutional requirements, the Malaysian Bar said.
Its president, Anand Raj said Article X(1) of the State Constitution required a full and complete inquiry by the Undangs before they could call upon the ruler to withdraw from the exercise of his functions or abdicate.
He said any “due enquiry” under Article X of the Laws of the Constitution of Negeri Sembilan 1959 (State Constitution), must comply with constitutional requirements and the rules of natural justice.
“Quite apart from the validity of the Purported Proclamation and its issuance (which the AGC has said is invalid), no contemporaneous record has been published to show that any such enquiry was ever held, nor that His Royal Highness was ever given an opportunity to rebut the allegations made against His Royal Highness,” he said in a statement today.
Anand said the right to be heard was a fundamental principle of natural justice, requiring a person accused of wrongdoing to know the case against him and be given a fair opportunity to respond before an adverse decision was made.
Citing the Privy Council decision in B Surinder Singh Kanda v The Government of the Federation of Malaya [1962] 1 MLJ 169, he said the principle applied to everyone, including the head of state.
“If ordinary citizens are constitutionally protected from unlawful removal from office without a fair hearing, His Royal Highness is entitled to no less protection,” he said.
Anand said failure to comply with Article X(1) rendered any purported action to remove Tuanku Muhriz invalid, adding that the courts could set aside a decision reached in breach of the principles of natural justice.
He also raised several unanswered questions over the handling of the crisis, including why the current Menteri Besar announced the purported removal on Sept 16 based on the proclamation, despite his predecessor having publicly described it as invalid. He said the current Menteri Besar had also claimed to have signed the proclamation under duress and coercion, according to a police report lodged on Sept 8.
“The public is entitled to know by whom, how and why, and why he lodged the police report only on Sept 8, some five weeks after the Purported Proclamation,” Anand said, adding that clarification was also needed on why the Menteri Besar subsequently endorsed the proclamation.
He said the basis on which the state government continued to operate might also require clarification, as Tuanku Muhriz had revoked the appointments of all state Exco members.
The Bar also noted the Oct 14 media statement by the Malay Rulers, which called for any differences of position to be resolved in accordance with custom and law and guided by the provisions of the State Constitution.