Flip flop by Mohamad Zabidin J?

The decision in Anwar Ibrahim's sodomy trial still bothers me. The judge asked himself the wrong question at the wrong time. Instead of asking whether the defence has raised a reasonable doubt, he asked himself whether the evidence of Saiful stood corroborated.

I am of the opinion that something terrible happened at some stage of the proceedings that resulted in this most unexpected decision. I just cannot understand why the Judge, after calling Anwar to enter his defence, decided that Saiful's testimony stood uncorroborated and ordered an acquittal. Was corroboration not something that the Judge ought to have looked for before calling for Anwar's defence?

The law to be applied at the end of the prosecution case is clear - after maximum evaluation of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the Judge must ask himself - has the prosecution adduced sufficient evidence to convict the accused in the event the accused is called upon to enter his defence and the accused elects to remain silent? If the answer to this question is in the negative, the accused must be acquitted. The judge cannot postpone this issue till end of the trial.

Why did the judge not look for corroborative evidence at the stage he was supposed to - at the end of the prosecution case? Why did the judge indulge in this exercise at the end of the trial? If the judge had taken the liberty to look for corroboration at the end of the prosecution case, obviously he would have found none and acquitted Anwar without his defence being called. Did the judge overlook this issue or was he asked to overlook? Was the judge dancing to a tune played by a puppeteer?

If the judge was dancing to a certain tune to ensure conviction, why then the acquittal? Here are some assumptions: -

There were 2 puppeteers. One for conviction and another for acquittal and the judge elected to submit to the puppeteer who was against conviction. By doing so, the judge, knowing very well that the charge against Anwar was trumped up, pleased one master and at the same time kept his conscience clear.

There was only 1 puppeteer and he got advice that a conviction will make things very difficult in the coming general elections. The judge was therefore asked to ensure an acquittal, which the judge did.

Allah SWT answered the many doas and solat hajats from Anwar's well wishers and those who did not want to be part of the ugly plot against Anwar. Allah SWT answers the prayers of His umats who are oppressed and Anwar was one oppressed man.

So, does this decision show independence of our judiciary? No ... Our courts are still servants to their masters ...