Constitutional law expert Abdul Aziz Bari warned that the Kelantan succession crisis is not a matter that should be brought into open court as it would open a Pandora's box.

NONE "I for one would love to see the drama unfold," he quipped, adding that "legally there is nothing wrong with it, but I don't think it's a good idea to do so.

"Neither the royals nor the courts would be fully prepared, or really want to handle the consequences of such a move," said Aziz.

As a foretaste of the troubles that may unfold, he pointed to the drama that arose when the late Yamtuan Besar of Negri Sembilan Tuanku Jaafar passed away in December last year.

The late ruler's death triggered a full scale proxy war over the succession between the humble Tuanku Muhriz, backed by the Undangs (district nobles) and the eldest son of Tuanku Jaafar, Tunku Naquiyuddin, who was a favourite of the state government.

"But Negri Sembilan is not alone in this," said Aziz who researched the royals for his book on the Conference of Rulers in 2002 and his PhD thesis on constitutional monarchy in 1996 .

"I know for a fact, that except for one or two, most of the nine royal houses now are not free from 'power struggles' of their own."

He noted that the Kedah ruler has no male issue, and Sultan Azlan was appointed as the Perak's ruler bypassing another royal line which has some claim to the throne.

Also, quite a few Sultans were installed, not by any virtue or right of succession, but by the dictates of the conquering British, or the Japanese invaders who came after them.

malaysian law conference 291007 sultan azlan shah 1 An explosion of court cases over succession will bot bode well for the monarchy's image given the bad press Sultan Azlan Shah generated for the royalty by his actions during the Perak crisis.

"What if there is even an issue with the order of succession for the Yang di Pertuan Agong?" he asked.

The UIA law professor warned that such a thing would pull the entire institution of the monarchy down into further disrepute.

'Courts are not well equipped'

"The question is will the court be ready to get into it?" asked Aziz, pointing to the fact that the Federal Constitution, as intended by the framers all the way to the Reid Commission, is more or less designed to protect the right to succession.

This, he said, was part of our legal precedent, as laid down in the cases of Menteri Othman Baginda (1981) and Tengku Ali (1996) which showed a reluctance on the part of the court to interfere.

If the precedent holds, Aziz said that it looks like whatever was decided by the succession council will be endorsed by the court.

He nevertheless conceded that we have to wait and see if the present court will abide by those decisions. "It may say those cases are different from what it is dealing now in Kelantan."

But as a technical matter, he believed that the courts are not well equipped to handle matters of royal succession. Only the council of succession, he said, in whatever shape or form, is well versed in the history and royal customs to decide on it.

He also believed that the royals were given the right to self-regulate themselves to preserve their dignity as symbols of Malaysia's sovereignty and the pillars of Islam and Malay Custom.

"This is something that we should maintain," said Aziz.

However he said that should the royals continue to make fools of their royal selves in public, "we may need to think about policing them or hold them to a higher standard of expected behaviour".

azlan To refute those who said the issue of the royals should not be openly discussed, he stressed that the public has a right and need to be informed and to discuss the conduct of the rulers.

"My point is that, we as taxpayers have every right to know. We are paying for their upkeep, every cent of it," he said.

On the matter of the Kelantan case, Aziz's views is that: "The law is on the regent's side. The constitution is pretty clear, and the court way back in 1981, confirmed that."

When asked about Tunku Fakhry's contention to the issue, he replied: "That's fine with me. Everything must be done in accordance with the constitution."

However, he added: "The chap is saying that the appointment was illegal from the start. He has to show that in court. He can claim anything he wants, but he does not have the final say."