Negeri Sembilan’s constitutional crisis has entered a new phase, with one side withdrawing its court challenge while another takes the state government to court.

Four traditional ruling chiefs who had sought to remove Yang di-Pertuan Besar Tuanku Muhriz withdrew their judicial review application at the Kuala Lumpur High Court yesterday.

The application had sought to compel Menteri Besar Ismail Lasim to sign an April 19 declaration removing Tuanku Muhriz and appointing Tunku Nadzaruddin.

The High Court allowed the withdrawal but ruled that the same case could not be filed again. The four were also ordered to pay RM40,000 in costs.

No reason was given for the withdrawal.

The development does not determine whether the April proclamation was constitutionally valid. 

But it leaves a significant question hanging. If the proclamation was considered legally defensible, why abandon the court action seeking to enforce it?

While that case has now been withdrawn, another constitutional dispute is moving through the courts.

Ten former Negeri Sembilan EXCO members have filed originating summonses at the Seremban High Court, seeking declarations that their dismissals were unconstitutional and invalid.

Their central argument is whether the Yang di-Pertuan Besar can revoke their appointments without the advice of the Menteri Besar.

Attorney-General Mohd Dusuki Mokhtar has maintained that the revocations are valid, arguing that EXCO members other than the Menteri Besar hold office at the ruler’s pleasure.

The former EXCO members are also seeking damages.

They can still enter Wisma Negeri as elected assembly members, but cannot occupy their former EXCO offices or exercise executive authority while the dispute continues.

The two cases now present a striking contrast.

The people who sought to change Negeri Sembilan’s leadership have withdrawn their attempt to have the court enforce that position.

The politicians who lost their executive positions are doing the opposite, asking the court to determine whether those dismissals were lawful.

Neither side can settle these constitutional questions simply by asserting that its interpretation is correct.

A proclamation does not become constitutional because its authors declare it so. 

An Attorney-General’s interpretation is not the same as a final court judgment. And filing a lawsuit does not automatically restore an appointment that has already been revoked.

Meanwhile, the state government still has to make decisions, run its agencies and exercise executive authority while these disputes continue.

The longer the constitutional questions remain unresolved, the harder it becomes to separate the political dispute from the practical business of governing the state.

Negeri Sembilan does not need competing claims over who holds power to continue indefinitely.

It needs a clear answer on where constitutional authority lies and for everyone involved to abide by it.

For now, that answer may have to come from the courts.