The saga of Anwar Ibrahim's tribulations continues despite his acquittal. The question now it seems is whether he did 'it' after all.

I am reminded of the TV series 'The Practice' where a group of smart lawyers take it upon themselves to defend clients that are in all probability are guilty based on the evidence. Often they manage to get their clients off based on some technicality or obscure point of law, despite the overwhelming evidence against the latter.

It ends usually with the judge acquitting the accused with a heavy heart.

It would seem that one of our judges is now caught between this rock and a hard place, grappling with this idealistic struggle between dispensing justice whilst upholding the law. If only this is the case.

Anwar was not released based on some technicality or point of law. He was released based on the evidence - or rather lack of it - and the learned judge should be keeping his 'gut feelings' to himself.

In obfuscating the issue by his strange comments, I can only venture that he was trying to 'save the face' of all those who have previously pronounced Anwar guilty.