The Court of Appeal judgment o­n the sodomy conviction of Anwar Ibrahim is a judgment made as a result of the judiciary allowing itself to be intimidated, its independence interfered with, and its integrity reduced to ignominy.

"The judiciary in Malaysia has been intimidated. There is no doubt about that," defence lawyer Karpal Singh told reporters after the judicial circus.

It is a judgment in which judicial courage and conviction caved in as three judges unanimously cowered in shameless compromise.

As UN special rapporteur o­n the independence of judges and lawyers Param Cumaraswamy said of the verdict: "So long as there are judges who are prepared to and continue to compromise the values and principles of their high office in such cases, there is no hope for judicial independence and impartiality in the Malaysian justice system."

It is a judgment not about the law but purely about political expediency and pliant judges allowing the courts to be a playground for politicians to persecute their foes by a perversion of the rule of law.

As succinctly put by Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail (Anwar Ibrahim's wife and Keadilan president): "The verdict was no surprise. This is a political case. It is a political prosecution because o­n the counts of law, we would have won the case."

It is a judgment made by 'specially selected' subservient judges, scripted, and o­ne made to serve the interest of a hidden hand, the identity of whom is an open secret.

As Anwar Ibrahim had put it in court: "What do you expect from these junior judges? They have been pre-selected to make this decision. It is all scripted."

It is a judgment that exposes the tragic reality in Malaysia that the judiciary - the very 'portal of justice' - could give legitimacy to a legal process that was politically motivated, patently unfair and palpably wrong.

"The judiciary has failed justice. Many misgivings have been said with regard to the widely perceived political persecution of Anwar and the role played by the judiciary in 'legalising' (Anwar's) continuing incarceration," was Suaram's response to the judgment.

It is a judgment by three judges who chose to ignore the overwhelming and damning evidence put forth by the defence team, ignobly causing a grave and glaring injustice.

"Overwhelming evidence of unfairness and bias was adduced to support this appeal; how the charges were amended midway; how weeks of evidence was expunged when the case did not go as expected; how no specific date could be determined as to when the so-called sodomy took place; how the star witness stumbled and fumbled while contradicting himself, etc. It is beyond the comprehension of fair-minded people that this kind of damning evidence could be completely ignored by the Court of Appeal in rejecting Anwar's appeal," Aliran pointed out.

It is a judgment that will further fracture this nation and makes evident the fact that the so-called 'very transparent judicial system' envisioned by recently appointed Chief Justice Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim is merely a farce, a fake, a fallacyfantasy.

DAP chairperson Lim Kit Siang commented aptly: "With the Court of Appeal rejection, and the failure of Anwar to walk out of court a free man today, the hopes of many that Malaysia can begin to return to normalcy in our national life - where Malaysians can look forward to substantial progress to be progressively made in restoring justice, freedom, democracy and good governance in Malaysia - have also been crushed."

In this dark hour a heavy question hangs over us. We are haunted by the very same question of 1988 when the executive hatched a plot to sack the then lord president - is there any hope, is there any honour left in the judiciary?