The Federal Court decision to allow the appeal of Anwar Ibrahim, resulting in his acquittal on the charge of sodomy, has to be viewed objectively. It is not the prime minister or government, but the courts that has given Anwar his freedom.

Before some people become engulfed in political euphoria and get overcome with emotion, and even worse seek retribution, it is wise they come back to reality and be reminded that the administration of Malaysia relies on three separate institutions - the executive, the legislature and the judiciary.

Each has its own defined function, and in this case, the judiciary has merely carried out what it does. Every trial has a verdict. In case of robbery, fraud or even homicide, not everyone agrees with the learned judges' decision.

But in the system of parliamentary democracy that we follow, the public by and large accepts the verdicts of the courts because that is the way it works. There is no reason why the trial of Anwar Ibrahim, however high-profile it might have been, should have been treated differently.

The lower courts ruled against him. Whether rightly or wrongly depends on the degree to which the bench was convinced by counsel. It is as a safeguard against this that there exists a system of appeal.

But does it deserve accusations of impropriety and undue influence? Many of us, from the onset of this unhappy affair, have maintained that speculation was pointless, and that the matter be best left to the courts.

Public perception might have been different, but if the judiciary were to run on public perception, then the very system of justice as practised in Malaysia would be in a sorry state.

If we subscribe to the rule of law, then we have to abide with what it prescribes, and not be selective about it.