N Sembilan disputed chieftains dismiss 'treason' claim, say royal council cited no law

 

Negeri Sembilan’s disputed chieftains accused of being "derhaka” (treasonous) have dismissed the allegation, claiming the Negeri Sembilan Council of the Yang di-Pertuan Besar and the Ruling Chiefs (Dewan Keadilan dan Undang or DKU) failed to identify any law they had allegedly contravened.

In an 11-page statement issued today, the Undang Yang Empat and tunku besar of Tampin said the accusation was made without citing a single legal provision.

“The allegation of ‘treason’ and the call for the authorities to prosecute were made without citing a single section of the law,” they stressed.

The chieftains also maintained that they merely exercised their powers vested under the Negeri Sembilan constitution.

Their response came after the DKU called for rival claimant to the throne Tunku Nadzaruddin Tuanku Ja’afar and the disputed undangs backing him to be investigated and prosecuted.

The DKU had accused Tunku Nadzaruddin (above) of treason over letters sent to Chief Secretary to the Government Shamsul Azri Abu Bakar and Attorney-General Dusuki Mokhtar on Sept 30.

Among others, the letters asked federal authorities not to recognise gazettes and orders issued under Tuanku Muhriz Tuanku Munawir’s name.

Tunku Nadzaruddin had referred to himself as the Yang di-Pertuan Besar in the letters, which were also signed by the chieftains supporting him.

The DKU said the letters amounted to an act of treason and could constitute an offence under the Penal Code, while urging the police and Attorney-General’s Chambers to investigate and initiate prosecution.

Constitutional requirement fulfilled?

A key point of contention is whether the chieftains fulfilled the requirements under Article 10 of the state constitution before moving to remove Tuanku Muhriz as Yang di-Pertuan Besar.

The DKU had argued that a March 5 meeting did not constitute the “full and complete enquiry” required under Article 10, citing the absence of minutes, reports or findings, as well as its contention that Tuanku Muhriz had not been informed that he was under investigation.

However, the chieftains disputed the DKU’s interpretation.

They said the DKU statement did not deny that questions had been put to Tuanku Muhriz on March 5, but merely stated that no enquiry had been recorded in the DKU secretary’s records.

According to them, Article 10 requires an enquiry by the chieftains themselves and does not state that such an enquiry must be conducted or recorded by the DKU secretariat.

They also said that Tuanku Muhriz was questioned face-to-face on March 5 and given the opportunity to respond.

The process, they added, involved direct questions put to Tuanku Muhriz, followed by 45 days of deliberation before a unanimous decision was reached.

“And Article 10 does not prescribe additional requirements such as written notices, formal charges, examination of witnesses or written grounds,” they said.

The chieftains' full statement can be read below:

The DKU's statement:

- Mkini