The long awaited but only just concluded verdict by Shah Alam High Court Judge, Mohd Zaki Md Yasin on the Altantuya case, is not only causing a spasmodic arrest within the legal circuit in Malaysia but is also the very talk of Ahmad, Muthu and Ah Beng nationwide.

Legal students and practicing professionals are shocked at the judge's conclusion.

Teaching lawyers will have nightmares in trying to make sense of the verdict that has completely negated motive from murders.

The learned judge is reported to have said that "motive, although relevant, has never been the essential to constitute murder."

Now even high school students are asking if motive is not essential then what is, in so far as a murder goes? Just the act of killing? Or just the person who carried out the actual killing?

The judge's verdict also places Malaysia's legal standards on the global legal table of scrutiny.

It has far reaching ramifications not only from the socio-political perspective of human rights but also from socio-economic as well as judicial dimensions.

Indeed we have with this concluding verdict demonstrated to the world in no uncertain terms that the way we interpret the law around here need not conform to what universally acceptable law books teach and how justice is dispensed in the democratic world over.

In our own backyard, this verdict also delves a lethal blow to the government of the day. Voters will all the more connect one plus one and make three.

The BN party will be the one that must now carry this yoke of suspicion transpiring from the conclusion of the judge.

Citizens are asking a simple yet profound and logical question: How could two trained, disciplined and uniformed members of the elite forces who are known and reputed to carry out their duties to the last letter of command have killed a helpless, unarmed, defenseless and solitary woman?

People are asking, a murder was planned to completely annihilate all traces of evidence by blowing a fragile female lass with deadly military grade C4 explosives and yet "motive' is not "essential"?

The Judge stated that "motive (is) relevant". But he went on to disqualify the crucial importance of motive in this case.

And so the citizens are now asking why. Why is motive not essential in this grisly, brutal and heinous crime against humanity when all indicators bleep that motive was the cause of the murder?

They are reasoning at kopitiam outlets in the big cities and the humble warongs in villages that how could two salaried, uniformed and specially tasked armed personnel carry out this murder of this helpless lady from Mongolia with whom they had no relationship with nor knowledge of?

People are saying that there was a motive for the act of killing to take place. And they want the law to establish that motive so that the person or persons who are party to the crime will be dealt with by the law adequately and with fair justice.

But alas, "motive" has just flown out of the window of Malaysia's judiciary. The precedent has been set. The rakyat are drawing down their blinds.

There is now a foregone conclusion in the minds and hearts of the citizens here - a verdict that will be almost insurmountable in the resurrection of Malaysia's justice system and its reputation.

Some citizens are even going the distance to say that if this transpired in another civil and democratic nation, by now the entire legal fraternity would have downed their tools of trade and demanded right-thinking action.

Will this happen in Malaysia? Only time can tell. But in the meantime the credibility of leaders and political parties and government systems have been dealt a lethal blow by this verdict on the Altantuya case.