/file/attachments/orphans/negerisembilanstatesecretaryoffice_943070.png)
Lawyer seeks N Sembilan state sec's transfer, alleges officials, AGC sought power grab
Lawyer Emirul Sarifudin Nor Azmi today called for disciplinary action and the transfer of Negeri Sembilan state secretary Zafir Ibrahim, alleging that he failed to comply with a proclamation recognising his client, Tuanku Nadzaruddin Tuanku Ja’afar, as the 12th Yang di-Pertuan Besar.
Emirul, who represents Tuanku Nadzaruddin, the Undang Yang Empat, and the tunku besar of Tampin, also accused Zafir, the state legal adviser, and the Attorney-General’s Chambers of potentially seeking to usurp the powers of the undang over the disputed proclamation concerning the state ruler.
In a statement today, Emirul said...
Lawyer Emirul Sarifudin Nor Azmi today called for disciplinary action and the transfer of Negeri Sembilan state secretary Zafir Ibrahim, alleging that he failed to comply with a proclamation recognising his client, Tuanku Nadzaruddin Tuanku Ja’afar, as the 12th Yang di-Pertuan Besar.
Emirul, who represents Tuanku Nadzaruddin, the Undang Yang Empat, and the tunku besar of Tampin, also accused Zafir, the state legal adviser, and the Attorney-General’s Chambers of potentially seeking to usurp the powers of the undang over the disputed proclamation concerning the state ruler.
In a statement today, Emirul said the state exco had unanimously decided on Sept 15 to accept and implement the proclamation issued by the four undang on April 19 and signed by Menteri Besar Ismail Lasim on Aug 3. He said the exco had also instructed Zafir to gazette the proclamation.
/file/attachments/orphans/TuankuNadzaruddinTuankuJaafar1_742550.png "Negeri Sembilan Tuanku Nadzaruddin Tuanku Ja’afar 170926")
However, Emirul said Zafir disobeyed the order by issuing a public statement on Sept 17 announcing that his office would not gazette the proclamation, which he claimed amounted to defying the exco’s decision.
He said this could constitute misconduct under the Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations 1993, while making a public statement without the written consent of the menteri besar or state exco could also breach the regulations.
READ MORE: N Sembilan state sec office rejects move to gazette removal, succession proclamations
"This is contrary to Regulation 4(2)(i) of the Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations 1993.
"If the statement on Set 17, 2026 was made without the written consent of the menteri besar and/or the exco, it would also breach Regulations 19(1) and 19(2) of the same regulations.
"The state secretary cannot oppose the decision of the Undang Yang Empat (below) under Article 10 of the Negeri Sembilan state constitution, and the decision of the exco. He also cannot, under any circumstances, accept instructions from external parties, including the Negeri Sembilan state legal adviser and/or the AGC, let alone be inclined towards personal opinions that contradict the state constitution and the decisions of the state authorities," Emirul added.
/file/publisher-c1a3f893382d2b2f8a9aa22a654d9c97/2026/04/2fad8db89eebcb4956856fc91429ec39.jpg "Negeri Sembilan Undang yang Empat reading proclomation removing Tuanku Muhriz Tuanku Munawir as Yang di-Pertuan Besar.
From left to right: Maarof Mat Rashad (Jelebu), Mubarak Thahak (Sungai Ujong), Muhammad Abdullah (Johol), and Abdul Rahim Yasin (Rembau).")
On Sept 17, Zafir said his office would not gazette or implement the disputed April 19 proclamation recognising Tunku Nadzaruddin as the new Yang di-Pertuan Besar, replacing Tuanku Muhriz Tuanku Munawir.
"This is contrary to Regulation 4(2)(i) of the Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations 1993.
In a statement, the state secretary said his office accepted the AGC's advice that the proclamation concerning the position of Yang di-Pertuan Besar was invalid.
The AGC, in a statement the previous day, said the menteri besar and state exco did not have unilateral powers to terminate or vacate the ruler’s office, adding that the proclamation’s validity and effect must be determined through lawful constitutional and legal processes.
READ MORE: KINIGUIDE | Negeri Sembilan royal rumble: What's going on?
Zafir said his office had also referred the matter to the Negeri Sembilan legal adviser to ensure that any action taken complied with prevailing laws and the state constitution.
However, Emirul disputed this, maintaining that gazettement was not a condition for the proclamation’s validity or implementation.
"The actions of the state secretary, the Negeri Sembilan state adviser, and/or the AGC in treating gazettement as a condition for the proclamation to take effect, when no such requirement exists under the state constitution, could be construed as an attempt to transfer and usurp the sovereign powers of the Undang Yang Empat under Article 10 of the state constitution, to themselves.
"The views of any federal government agency, including the AGC, are merely opinions and are not binding orders. What binds the state secretary is the executive decision of the exco," the lawyer stressed.
The dispute follows the AGC’s rejection of the state exco’s decision concerning Tuanku Muhriz’s position as ruler. The Undang Yang Empat and tunku besar of Tampin have also criticised the AGC, calling its statement “confusing” and arguing that the federal agency has no role in Negeri Sembilan’s internal affairs or in determining the validity of the proclamation.
/file/publisher-c1a3f893382d2b2f8a9aa22a654d9c97/2026/07/28a17030286fb8142cc1168eff174295.png)
/file/publisher-c1a3f893382d2b2f8a9aa22a654d9c97/2026/04/2fad8db89eebcb4956856fc91429ec39.jpg)
/file/attachments/orphans/negerisembilanstatesecretaryoffice_943070.png)
/file/attachments/orphans/image151_896508.jpeg)
If Exco has committed a crime can it instruct state secretary to clean up the crime scene?
The latest position advanced on behalf of Tuanku Nadzaruddin creates a significant internal contradiction. Their argument is now that the Menteri Besar's signature was necessary to complete or perfect the 19 April proclamation, and that Ismail Lasim's signature on 3 August therefore completed the constitutional process. But if that proposition is correct, it necessarily means that the proclamation was not complete on 19 April. Otherwise, there would have been nothing for the MB's subsequent signature to “complete”. That immediately creates the difficulty for their case. 1. The relevant MB was asked to sign — and refused The proclamation was made on 19 April. It was presented the following day to Aminuddin Harun, who was then the lawful Menteri Besar. Aminuddin did not merely fail to sign through oversight. He says he refused to sign it because he considered the constitutional process defective. Therefore, applying the proponents' own reasoning, the constitutionally necessary step which they now say was required to perfect the proclamation was presented to the relevant office-holder and was expressly withheld. 2. They cannot simultaneously say the MB's signature was essential and treat the first MB's refusal as legally meaningless They face a logical choice. If the MB's signature was not necessary, Ismail's 3 August signature cannot be relied upon as the act which “completed” the proclamation. If the MB's signature was necessary, Aminuddin's refusal on 20 April becomes legally significant and requires an explanation. They cannot have it both ways: MB signature unnecessary → 3 August signature does not perfect anything. MB signature necessary → 20 April refusal cannot simply be ignored. 3. What kept the rejected/incomplete instrument alive? This is the missing legal bridge in their argument. Having accepted that the proclamation required an MB's signature, they must identify the constitutional provision which allowed an instrument that the then-incumbent MB expressly refused to complete to remain alive indefinitely, waiting for another MB or another government to come along months later and sign it. It is not enough simply to assert that Ismail eventually signed it. What provision allowed the unfinished 19 April process to survive Aminuddin's refusal and subsequently be revived? 4. A change of government does not ordinarily rewrite an earlier constitutional event The relevant question is whether the constitutional requirements were satisfied when the purported removal was undertaken. A later office-holder cannot simply be assumed to possess a retrospective power to supply a constitutional step which the office-holder responsible at the material time expressly declined to perform. If the Constitution provides such a mechanism, identify it. Otherwise the more coherent course would seemingly have been to commence a fresh process under Article 10, satisfying all the necessary constitutional requirements anew, rather than attempting months later to complete the old April instrument. 5. The 15 September Exco decision creates another problem rather than curing this one
Are you sure you want to delete this comment?
This action cannot be undone.