The Anwar Ibrahim bail application saga comes to a sad and predictable end. The Federal Court has denied him bail pending its decision on his sodomy conviction appeal.

The highest court in the land has clutched on to a provision, described by the presiding judge as 'ambiguous and did not make any sense' but which was clear enough to it to deny Anwar bail.

The words by Abdul Hamid in giving his ruling are so reminiscent of the diatribe against the judiciary by Dr Mahathir Mohamad in the events leading to the sacking of the Lord President in 1988. They are a stark reminder to the public that very little in the judiciary has changed since then.

The courageous and cogent argument by the Bar Council over the Federal Court's use of Coja (Courts of Judicature Act) to refuse a stay of execution of sentence and bail for Anwar and his co-accused Sukma Darmawan Sasmitaat Madja, reinforces the public perception's that its not the rule of law that the judiciary is interested in - but the 'law' of those who rule.

Alas, nothing can warm our hearts when judges have cold feet.

The fact that the great Palace of Justice complex holding the highest court in the country would one day have to hear a simple bail application highlights the sad and tragic state of affairs in the country's judiciary.

The manner and duration in which the judiciary had handled and heard the bail application gave legitimacy to public suspicion that the legal process was still politically motivated, patently unfair and palpably wrong.

The then High Court Judge, Arifin Jaka, had declared from the start that Anwar's case would be treated like any other 'ordinary' sodomy case. But in spite of the 'ordinary' practice of granting bail to those accused of sodomy, the judge denied him bail.

Anwar was entitled to bail for the same reason that Arifin Jaka had granted bail to Anwar's adopted brother, Sukma Darmawan Sasmitaat Madja, who was jointly tried, convicted and sentenced - sodomy is a bailable offence.

The contradictory ruling of Arifin Jaka in the joint case proved that Anwar's case was no 'ordinary' sodomy case. It had nothing to do with the law, but politics.

The handling of Anwar's application for bail by the Court of Appeal turned out to be a big disaster for the judiciary's already crumbling credibility in the case. There were moments when it looked as though the prisoner of Sungai Buloh was the one holding court and the judges were on trial.

Anwar's lawyers highlighted Arifin Jaka's glaring judicial inconsistency to the Court of Appeal. Instead of granting Anwar bail, the court instead revoked Sukma's bail and ordered him to serve his sentence with immediate effect.

Such a highly irregular decision for a supposedly 'ordinary' sodomy case surprised Suhakam chief Abu Talib Othman too " the judges revoked bail for Sukma Darmawan in the absence of an application by the prosecution. Why are the judges taking it upon themselves to do this?"

For the first time in Bolehland it took three judges of a Court of Appeal as long as nine months to deliver a verdict on a bail application which a solitary magistrate could normally dispose of in nine minutes. It was really shameful but the chief justice remained silent.

Just as Justice Augustine Paul gave a new nuance to the word 'irrelevant', the presiding judge of the Court of Appeal, Justice Pajan Singh, provided new meaning to the term 'as soon as possible'.

The Court of Appeal should have granted Anwar Ibrahim bail just as a court had granted bail in 1987 to a man accused of sodomising a blind boy at the St Nicholas School for the Blind in Penang.

In 1990, this accused was convicted, sentenced to five years jail, and ordered to be given nine strokes of the rotan. He appealed - and was granted bail again. There was none of the pre-conviction and post-conviction distinction for bail gobbledegook as advanced by Pajan in his ruling.

Equally tragic is how the judiciary had become 'an accomplice' (a term used by Anwar's lead counsel Christopher Fernando) to the unprecedented and vehement objection of the attorney- general to Anwar's request for bail.

Fernando had told the Court of Appeal: "For the past 25 years, your lordships would know, having been in the private practice yourselves, that the court is known to grant bail both during trial and pending appeal. In fact, it is an exception for the court to refuse bail."

As it had turned out, the court chose the exception in for this 'ordinary' sodomy case. The judiciary chose to work not for the prosecutor but with the prosecutor in keeping Anwar Ibrahim behind bars.

Addressing the Federal Court, Fernando had made a similar appeal. He urged the court to consider carefully the conduct of the prosecution in vehemently objecting to his client's request for bail.

"I urge the court not to become an accomplice to what the prosecution wants this court to do, which is to deny him (Anwar) bail," he said.

If the highest court in the land can allow itself to be intimidated, its independence interfered with, and its integrity reduced to ignominy all in a simple bail application - can the public expect it to deliver an 'honest judgment' in Anwar's final appeal against his sodomy conviction?

Alas, history will remember how that when the highest court in Bolehland was asked to assume its ultimate responsibility as the highest protector of human rights, it chose instead to hide behind a vague provision thrown to it by the attorney-general, preferring instead to relinquish jurisdiction.

Where is courage?

Where is honour?

Where is the independence of the judiciary?