I wish someone would explain the logic of the recent Federal Court judgment on Anwar's sodomy trial.
The learned judges decided to acquit Anwar stating that his defence should not have been called in the first place. They then go on to say that they found evidence to confirm that he had been engaged in homosexual activities at Tivoli Villa. So why acquit him?
At the same time we gather that this evidence of homosexual activity was based on the testimonies of witnesses who are said to be totally reliable. It is all very confusing, especially for a non-lawyer types like me.
Perhaps the obiter dicta of the judges was a 'face-saving' gesture for the benefit of the person(s) responsible for initiating Anwar's persecution and a spanner in the works to derail Anwar's political career.