The bottom line

Almost everything done between April and June 2026 rests on a prior fact: was Datuk Mubarak still the Undang of Sungai Ujong when the four chiefs purported to move against the ruler? The constitution needs at least three valid Undang to act (Article XXIX), and the composite Ruler needs three of the four (Article XXVIII). If Mubarak had already been removed, and another man now holds his seat, the arithmetic of April changes. This essay shows why a short factual question may carry the whole case. It does not answer it — that is for the court, and the central document is not yet public.

Why the count is the case

In essay 2/NS we met a rule that looked dry and turned out to be decisive. Under Article XXIX (Article 29), the powers of the Undangs are validly exercised only if exercised by at least three of them; and under Article XXVIII (Article 28), the composite “Ruler” acts through the man on the throne together with three of the four chiefs.¹ Laws of the Constitution of Negeri Sembilan 1959 (2008 Reprint, incorporating amendments to 1 January 2008), Articles XXVIII and XXIX. Three is the threshold. Acts that depend on the Undang acting as the Undang must clear it.

That makes a single name unexpectedly load-bearing. If, in April 2026, one of the four was no longer a valid Undang, then the chiefs who acted may have been three, not four — or, on the other side’s case, the full four. The difference is not cosmetic. It may be the difference between a constitutional act and a nullity. A storm over a throne, in other words, may turn on a headcount.

The man and the office

Datuk Mubarak — reported variously as Mubarak Dohak and Mubarak Thahak — had long held the office of Undang of the luak of Sungai Ujong, one of the four constitutional electors of the ruler.² On the office of Undang of Sungai Ujong as one of the Undang Yang Empat, see the Negeri Sembilan state information pages and the constitutional summary at the Yang di-Pertuan Besar entry; for the 2026 dispute, see The Star, “Four Undang dispute MB’s claim over Mubarak’s removal”, 20 April 2026. His standing as an elector is not in doubt for the years before this dispute. What is in dispute is whether he still held the office during the events of 2026.

The reason the question is open is that two rival accounts of his status are both in the public record, and the document that would settle them has not been produced.

The State’s account

The state government’s position is direct. It says Mubarak had already been lawfully removed as Undang under the proper customary process of his luak — reported as a removal in May 2025 for breaching a long list of customary rules — and that the Dewan Keadilan dan Undang later confirmed that removal at a special meeting on 17 April 2026.³ Reports that Mubarak was removed by the luak adat authority and that the DKU confirmed the position at a special meeting on 17 April 2026; see Free Malaysia Today, April–May 2026 coverage, and statements attributed to the Menteri Besar. The exact customary grounds and the date of effect are themselves contested. On that account, by the time the four chiefs acted on 19 April 2026, Mubarak had no office to act from: he could neither sign nor read any proclamation as Undang, and was required to give up the official residence and the Balai Undang.⁴ Statements attributed to the Menteri Besar that Mubarak lacked authority after removal; reporting on the order to vacate the official residence, Free Malaysia Today, “Negeri Sembilan govt orders Sungai Ujong Undang’s residence vacated”, 29 April 2026.

There is a further fact that fits this account. On 5 May 2026, the customary adat body of Sungai Ujong is reported to have appointed a new Undang of the luak — a young accountant, Muhammad Faris Johari — explaining that the election and removal of a Datuk Undang must follow the custom of the luak alone.⁵ Bernama, 5 May 2026, reporting the appointment by the Majlis Dato Lembaga Adat Sungei Ujong of a new Undang of Sungai Ujong, and the statement that election and removal of a Datuk Undang must follow adat luaknya “selaras dengan … Fasal 14 (1 dan 3)”. If that appointment is good, then the seat of Sungai Ujong is filled by someone other than Mubarak — and a man cannot act as a chief whose chair another lawfully occupies.

The Undang’s account

The four chiefs’ position is equally direct, and it joins issue exactly where the State’s case is strongest. They have publicly disputed the Menteri Besar’s claim that Mubarak’s removal was validly agreed — the claim the State frames under “Article 14(3)”.⁶ The Star, “Four Undang dispute MB’s claim over Mubarak’s removal”, 20 April 2026. On the “14(3)” framing and why the official text locates the advice-and-finality machinery in Article XVI rather than the allowance clause in Article XIV(3), see essay 2/NS. In substance, they say the customary and constitutional steps the State relies on were not properly taken; that the process said to have removed him does not hold up; and that they therefore continue to treat Mubarak as one of the four. On their account, the chiefs who acted in April were the full complement, acting within a power the constitution gives them.

Notice that the two accounts do not merely disagree about opinion. They disagree about a sequence of events — what was decided, by whom, on what date, with what effect. That is the kind of disagreement that is, in the end, resolved by records.

The document everyone is reaching for

Which is why the lawsuit, when it came, asked first not for a grand declaration but for a piece of paper.

In early May 2026 a suit was filed in the Seremban High Court by Mubarak together with the Undang of Jelebu, Johol and Rembau, the Tunku Besar of Tampin and the Shahbandar of Sungai Ujong. Its primary relief was an order compelling production of the minutes of the DKU’s special meeting of 17 April 2026, and the suspension of decisions linked to that meeting pending their production.⁷ Free Malaysia Today, “4 Undang bawa krisis adat N. Sembilan ke mahkamah”, 4 May 2026; Malaysiakini, “N Sembilan nobles take royal dispute to court, seek access …”, 4 May 2026. The relief sought centred on production of the 17 April 2026 DKU minutes. Stripped of its formality, the application says: show us the record that is being used against us.

That is not a small procedural skirmish. In public-law disputes, control of the official record can decide the war. If the 17 April minutes show a regular, properly-constituted process, the State’s account of Mubarak’s removal is strengthened. If they do not, the chiefs’ account gains force. The minutes are, as of writing, not public.⁸ As at early June 2026 the 17 April 2026 DKU minutes had not been made public; their production was the central relief sought in the originating summons. A great deal is waiting behind that closed document.

Where the law cannot yet go — and where it can

It is tempting, watching all this, to want an answer now. The honest position is narrower, and it splits in two.

On the merits of the customary removal — whether Mubarak deserved to lose his office, whether the adat grounds were made out — a court will tread carefully, because that is the heartland of luak custom, and because the constitution channels such questions to the DKU (the subject of essays 5/NS and 6/NS).

But on the lawfulness of the process — whether the body was properly constituted, whether the right persons took part, whether what the constitution requires was done — the questions look more like ordinary questions of legality, of the sort courts examine every day. Was the removal effected on the date claimed, or only confirmed later, and can a confirmation reach back in time? Was the new appointment of 5 May valid, and if so from when? And, underneath it all: is “who holds the office of Undang” a fact a court may find, or a title question the Federal Constitution remits to the state’s own authorities? That last question is the bridge to essay 5/NS, and we carry it there rather than pretend to settle it here.

The open question

So the question that names this essay stays open, and properly so:

Was Mubarak still an Undang of Negeri Sembilan when the four chiefs acted in April 2026?

If he was validly removed before then, acts done by him afterwards as Undang are vulnerable, and the events that followed may rest on a count of three rather than four. If he was not, the State faces the harder argument that what happened in April was the act of four constitutional electors. Either way, a court may also have to ask what becomes of decisions already taken on the assumption that he was out of office.

It is a short question.

It carries the weight of the whole crisis.

And the answer is locked, for now, inside a set of minutes that no one outside the council has seen.

∞§∞

This is essay 4 of six in a linked series on the 2026 Negeri Sembilan constitutional dispute. It identifies the factual and legal question on which much of the dispute turns; it offers no view on the answer, which is a matter for the court.⁹ On the discipline of commenting while a matter is pending — and the particular care owed where status and standing are contested — see GK Ganesan, “Is the sub-judice rule dead?”, https://www.gkg.legal/is-the-sub-judice-rule-dead/ .

∞§∞

This article is written for a general readership and does not constitute technical or legal advice. Readers with legal questions are encouraged to seek independent legal advice.

The author thanks KN Geetha, TP Vaani, JN Leela, and Lydia Jaynthi at GK Legal. 

Claude, Anthropic’s AI, smoothed the drafting; Perplexity Pro checked the facts. Advocate, editor and sceptic together made one essay better than any could alone. The argument, the views, and the errors remain the author’s.

@Copyright reserved.

All content on this site, including but not limited to text, compilation, graphics, documents, and layouts, is the intellectual property of GK Ganesan Kasinathan and is protected by local and international copyright laws. Any use shall be invalid unless written permission is obtained by writing to gk@gkganesan.com.

Publishing metadata for WordPress — copy into the post’s Excerpt and Keywords/Tags fields; do not publish in the body.