Can Negeri Sembilan’s Exco Suspend Its Own State Secretary and Legal Adviser?
Does the State Executive Council (MMKN) have the constitutional authority to do so, or does the position differ in respect of each officer?
On 22 September, Negeri Sembilan’s state government suspended two senior officials.
Datuk Mohd Zafir Ibrahim, the State Secretary. Datuk Muzalmah Mustapha Kamal, the State Legal Adviser.
Both suspensions were reportedly decided “unanimously” by the Majlis Mesyuarat Kerajaan Negeri.1Malay Mail, “Negeri Sembilan govt suspends state secretary, legal adviser amid royal row,” 22 September 2026, https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2026/09/22/negeri-sembilan-govt-suspends-state-secretary-legal-adviser-amid-royal-row/236130 Malaysians call that body the MMKN. The Constitution calls it the Executive Council.
Most readers, in Malaysia and abroad, will not know what that body actually is. Start there.
WHAT THE MMKN IS
The MMKN is Negeri Sembilan’s state Cabinet. The Ruler appoints it under Article XXXVIII of the state’s 1959 Constitution Negeri Sembilan Constitution 1959.2 , Art XXXVIII — appointment, composition and functions of the Executive Council (the MMKN).
The Menteri Besar chairs it.
It advises the Ruler.
It exercises the state’s executive power, always consistent with the Federal Constitution.3Federal Constitution, Art 81 — state executive authority to be exercised consistently with federal law.
It is not the State Legislative Assembly, which makes the state’s laws.
It is not the Ruler, who holds the sovereign office.
It is the executive branch.
It answers to the Assembly.
Courts may review what it does.
That distinction matters here.
The real question is whether, on 22 September, the body calling itself the ‘MMKN’ was the one the Constitution recognises.
TWO OFFICERS, TWO DIFFERENT POSITIONS
Zafir and Muzalmah do not stand in the same legal position. “Suspended” should not be read as if they did.
Zafir is a state civil servant.
His office answers, ordinarily, to the state’s own public-service machinery.4Ang Ek Koon v Director, Public Works Department Sarawak & Ors [2018] MLJU 1713.
Muzalmah is different.
Her office is created by Article XXXVII of the Negeri Sembilan Constitution.
It advises “the Yang di-Pertuan Besar or the State Government” on legal matters.5Negeri Sembilan Constitution 1959, Art XXXVII(2)(b) — office of the State Legal Adviser and duty to advise the Yang di-Pertuan Besar or the State Government.
Two possible principals, in one clause.
State Legal Advisers in Malaysia usually belong to the federal Judicial and Legal Service, set up under Federal Constitution Articles 138 and 144.6Federal Constitution, Arts 138 and 144 — the Judicial and Legal Service Commission and the general functions of Service Commissions.
One distinction matters here.
Article 138 creates the Service itself.
A separate, smaller body — the Judicial and Legal Service Commission — governs its discipline and its removals.
Belonging to the Service is not the same as answering to the Commission that runs it.
If Muzalmah belongs to that Service — (this essay could not verify her actual instrument of appointment) — her discipline may sit with the federal Commission, not the MMKN alone.
The Federal Court has already confirmed this.
Every officer in the Judicial and Legal Service, even the Attorney General himself, falls under that Commission’s jurisdiction. No single office-holder decides alone.7Cheak Yoke Thong v Public Prosecutor [1984] 2 MLJ 119.
This is a legal question. It is not yet a settled fact.
WHAT SUSPENSION MEANS, AND WHAT IT DOES NOT
Malaysian law separates ‘suspension pending inquiry’ from ‘dismissal’.
The 1993 Conduct and Discipline Regulations make suspension discretionary, not automatic.8Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations 1993, reg 44(1); discussed in Muhammad Sazrin bin Ismail v Pengerusi Lembaga Tatatertib Kumpulan Sokongan (No 1) & Ors [2020] MLJU 355; [2020] 10 MLJ 353.
Suspension is provisional.
It finds no wrongdoing.
It is not removal from office.
Even so, Malaysian courts generally require that a suspended officer be told what is alleged against him/her.
Full fairness comes later, before any dismissal.9Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations 1993, reg 44(1); discussed in Muhammad Sazrin bin Ismail v Pengerusi Lembaga Tatatertib Kumpulan Sokongan (No 1) & Ors [2020] MLJU 355; [2020] 10 MLJ 353.
No gazette notice, and no written instrument of suspension, has surfaced publicly yet.
What exists, as reported, is the Menteri Besar’s own statement that the MMKN decided this at a special meeting.
And what about the two interim replacements?
Datuk Masri Razali taking over the Secretary’s duties, and a lawyer named Fahmi Adilah handling legal matters.10Malay Mail, “Negeri Sembilan govt suspends state secretary, legal adviser amid royal row,” 22 September 2026, https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2026/09/22/negeri-sembilan-govt-suspends-state-secretary-legal-adviser-amid-royal-row/236130
This essay could not verify Fahmi Adilah’s background, or any earlier link to the Menteri Besar.
One Malay Mail opinion piece has already asked who is advising the Menteri Besar.11Malay Mail, “Who is advising NS MB? — Hafiz Hassan” (opinion), 22 September 2026, https://www.malaymail.com/news/what-you-think/2026/09/22/who-is-advising-ns-mb-hafiz-hassan/236050 That question stays open.
WHO MAY APPOINT — AND WHO MAY NOT APPOINT THE STATE SECRETARY, STATE LEGAL ADVISER & STATE FINANCIAL OFFICER
Here is the essay’s central point.
Article XXXVII(1) of the Negeri Sembilan Constitution is plain.
The State Secretary, the State Legal Adviser and the State Financial Officer are all appointed the same way — by “the appropriate Service Commission,” from among its own members.12Negeri Sembilan Constitution 1959, Art XXXVII(1) — appointment of the State Secretary, State Legal Adviser and State Financial Officer by the appropriate Service Commission from among members of the relevant public services.
Not by the Menteri Besar.
Not by the MMKN.
The Federal Constitution points the same way.
Even a “special post,” created to bypass the ordinary process, must still be filled by the Ruler — and only on that Commission’s recommendation.
Never by one man’s own choice.13Federal Constitution, Art 144(1), (3) and (4) — the duty of a Service Commission to appoint members of the service under its jurisdiction, and the special-posts mechanism under which even senior posts are filled by the Ruler only on that Commission’s recommendation.
So an adviser or secretary brought in from outside the proper service could not lawfully be appointed by the Menteri Besar alone.
Whether Masri Razali and Fahmi Adilah were properly appointed by that Commission, or are simply carrying out these duties ‘informally’, is not something the public record shows.
That gap matters.
An informal, temporary arrangement is a smaller problem than an office filled outside the process the Constitution demands.
This essay does not say either man’s position is invalid. It states only what the Constitution requires, and it notes plainly what remains unconfirmed.
THE QUESTION BENEATH THE QUESTION
Here is the fact that reframes everything above it.
Around 20 September, the Yang di-Pertuan Besar, Tuanku Muhriz, is reported to have revoked all ten MMKN appointments.
The stated reason: breach of oath.
He is said to have told the Menteri Besar to propose a new line-up.14Malay Mail, “Negeri Sembilan Ruler revokes exco appointments over breach of oath, orders MB to propose new line-up,” 20 September 2026, https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2026/09/20/negeri-sembilan-ruler-revokes-exco-appointments-over-breach-of-oath-orders-mb-to-propose-new-line-up/235912
The Menteri Besar disputes that the revocation was valid. He maintains his Executive Council remains intact.
This is a disputed fact.
One side asserts it.
The other denies it.
No court has yet decided.
If the Royal revocation stands, the MMKN that suspended Zafir and Muzalmah had no lawful standing to act for anyone.
If the revocation fails, the MMKN acted as an ordinary, lawful Cabinet.
Neither this essay, nor any court so far, has answered that question. Every other conclusion here stays provisional against it.
One more layer.
The Attorney General’s Chambers reportedly held that an April proclamation, touching the Ruler’s status, failed to meet the Negeri Sembilan Constitution’s own requirements.
The State Secretary’s office is said to have agreed — and that agreement is part of what is now said to have triggered his suspension.15Malay Mail, “Negeri Sembilan State Secretary’s Office backs AGC view, says won’t gazette April 19 proclamation on Ruler,” 18 September 2026, https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2026/09/18/negeri-sembilan-state-secretarys-office-backs-agc-view-says-wont-gazette-april-19-proclamation-on-ruler/23558516KosmoOnline, “Tindakan SUK Negeri Sembilan tidak warta proklamasi, usaha rampas kuasa – Peguam,” 19 September 2026, https://www.kosmo.com.my/2026/09/19/tindakan-suk-negeri-sembilan-tidak-warta-proklamasi-usaha-rampas-kuasa-peguam/
Whether following the AGC’s stated view can lawfully justify disciplining an officer is, again, an open legal question.
This essay leaves it there.
WHAT THE LAW REQUIRES, IN GENERAL
Set the antecedent dispute aside for a moment.
Malaysian and Commonwealth public law settle a few things clearly, whichever way that dispute is eventually resolved.
A suspending authority must actually hold the power it claims.
Sincerely believing you are lawful does not make you lawful.
Even a provisional suspension usually demands some fairness.
Malaysian courts hold that fairness depends on the circumstances — a test borrowed from the Australian case of Kioa v West.17Muziadi bin Mukhtar v Pihak Berkuasa Tatatertib Majlis Perbandaran Seberang Perai & Anor [2017] MLJU 583, applying Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550 (HCA, Brennan J).
In the right case, courts have required an oral hearing for an officer who denies the charge.18Muhammad Sazrin bin Ismail v Pengerusi Lembaga Tatatertib Kumpulan Sokongan (No 1) & Ors [2020] MLJU 355; [2020] 10 MLJ 353.
Where an officer’s real appointment sits in a different institutional stream — here, potentially, the federal Judicial and Legal Service, not the state executive — the disciplining body’s power over that officer cannot simply be assumed.19Cheak Yoke Thong v Public Prosecutor [1984] 2 MLJ 119.
State Secretaries also carry their own reporting duties to the right Commission whenever interdiction is in play.20Ang Ek Koon v Director, Public Works Department Sarawak & Ors [2018] MLJU 1713.
A legal adviser serving two masters under one clause — Ruler and government alike — sits in a position that needs careful institutional design, whoever turns out right today.
It is a familiar problem in constitutional crises well beyond Malaysia.
WHAT TO WATCH
This essay has not decided whether the MMKN that suspended Zafir and Muzalmah was the MMKN the Constitution recognises. That question is unresolved. It may end up in court.
Watch four things.
Whether a written suspension instrument, with stated grounds, is published.
Whether anyone seeks judicial review of the Ruler’s revocation, or of the suspensions themselves.
Watch also whether the Judicial and Legal Service Commission says anything about Muzalmah’s position.
And whether the Ruler’s own revocation instrument, with its legal grounds, is published in full.
Until then, the honest answer to “who is right” is simple.
Other than the Federal and the State Constitutions, no one outside a courtroom is yet entitled to say.
∞§∞
This article is for general information only and is not legal or technical advice. Seek independent legal advice where appropriate.
Thanks to KN Geetha, TP Vaani, JN Lheela and Lydia Jaynthi of GK Legal, and Wesley Tingey of Unsplash for the image. Claude (Anthropic) assisted with drafting and Perplexity Pro with fact-checking; the author is solely responsible for all views and errors.
© GK Ganesan Kasinathan. All rights reserved. No part of this site’s content may be used without prior written permission: gk@gkganesan.com.
