KUALA LUMPUR – The Federal Court should exercise its constitutional judicial powers to intervene on its own initiative and resolve the ongoing constitutional dispute in Negeri Sembilan, retired Court of Appeal judge Datuk Dr Hamid Sultan Abu Backer said.
Hamid Sultan argued that the Royal Institution does not possess the jurisdiction to determine constitutional disputes or alleged breaches of constitutional provisions, saying such matters should be resolved through the courts.
“The case for suo motu intervention is to resolve Negeri Sembilan’s urgent constitutional crises,” he told Scoop.
Under Article 34 of the Negeri Sembilan Constitution, constitutional questions relating to the interpretation or effect of its provisions may be referred to the Federal Court for its opinion, including through a reference by the Ruler.
However, Hamid Sultan said the existing legal mechanisms were insufficient to address an urgent constitutional impasse.
“Currently, the only available pathway is the Judicial Review process.”
“Unfortunately, this mechanism is inherently unsuited for urgent crises, requiring litigants to exhaust lengthy appeals through the High Court and Court of Appeal before reaching the Federal Court,” he added.
He said the apex court should instead invoke what he described as its suo motu jurisdiction to provide a prompt and conclusive determination.
“To bypass these systemic delays, the Federal Court must exercise its suo motu jurisdiction to deliver swift, definitive rulings,” he stressed.
Suo motu, meaning “on its own motion”, refers to a court taking action without an application being filed by any party.
Hamid Sultan said such intervention could be supported by the constitutional oath taken by judges to uphold and defend the Federal Constitution.
“In contrast, a suo motu intervention acts as an inquisitorial review activated by Oath of Office jurisprudence.”
“This grants judges the legitimate constitutional judicial power to act immediately within the Constitutional Framework itself,” he explained.
His remarks come amid an ongoing constitutional dispute in Negeri Sembilan involving the position of Yang di-Pertuan Besar Tuanku Muhriz Tuanku Munawir, the state executive and the Undangs.
The Attorney-General’s Chambers has stated that a proclamation purportedly removing Tuanku Muhriz was invalid, while the state Dewan Keadilan dan Undang has maintained that he remains the legitimate Yang di-Pertuan Besar and chairman of the body.
The dispute has triggered differing views among constitutional experts over the appropriate legal avenue to resolve the matter.
Constitutional lawyer Bastian Pius Vendargon has highlighted Article 34 as a possible mechanism for judicial intervention, while legal expert Haniff Khatri Abdulla has suggested the use of a royal mechanism to address the impasse.
Hamid Sultan has previously maintained that the Federal Court has an inherent constitutional duty to act when the constitutional framework is threatened by what he described as arbitrary exercises of power.
In a recent commentary, he said the Attorney-General should consider referring the matter to the Federal Court, while arguing that the apex court has constitutional authority to issue suo motu orders or directions.
For the current dispute, Hamid Sultan said resolving the crisis required a mechanism capable of producing a final ruling without the delays associated with conventional litigation.
“The Federal Court must exercise its suo motu jurisdiction to deliver swift, definitive rulings,” he reiterated.
The Negeri Sembilan constitutional dispute has intensified in recent weeks following the purported removal proclamation involving Tuanku Muhriz, subsequent developments involving the state Executive Council, and differing interpretations of the constitutional powers held by the Yang di-Pertuan Besar and the state administration. – September 25, 2026