This is in reference to the Federal Court decision dismissing Anwar Ibrahim's application to set aside his earlier conviction and sentence on four counts of corruption and abuse of power, the effect of which is to bar him from holding office in political parties and societies or stand for election until April 14, 2008.

Following the decision, Anwar was reported to have said , 'I understand with the current political leadership and local media engineering political discord and disharmony, the judiciary is not immune to interference by the executive'.

The question immediately arises whether Anwar's public statement on political interference of the Sept 15 decision is objective and responsible.

He should not be perceived to selectively judge the judiciary to be uninfluenced and independent on Sept 2 because it decided in his favour but was influenced and not independent because it decided against him on a different charge and sentence on Sept 15.

The net effect implied by him is that our judiciary had on Sept 15 reverted back to being still influenced and not independent because of the noise generated by the Umno leadership immediately preceding it.

It must be pointed out that Anwar's stance contradicts what was stated by his other counsel, Karpal Singh.

Karpal Singh was reported to have said that '... the reasons given by the judges were acceptable. I do not think there was any political consideration today (Sept 15 ) or was there any on Sept 2'.

In light of what Karpal said, Anwar's latest stance is untenable.

However, Anwar's acquittal of sodomy charges on Sept 2 and the affirmation of abuse of power charges on Sept 15 give the public the following general impressions.

It will be recollected that the crux of the prosecution's case in respect to Anwar's abuse of power is that Anwar had used his position as deputy prime minister to pressure the Special Branch to force two witnesses - his former driver Azizan Abu Bahar and one Ummi Hafilda Ali - to withdraw accusations of sodomy/sexual misconduct against him.

The sodomy/sexual misconduct charge on Sept 2 was decided as unproven, and Anwar was vindicated as not guilty, which raises the next question as to why an unsupportable charge of sodomy/sexual misconduct based on inadequate evidence was brought against Anwar, holding the high office of deputy premier, in the first instance.

Would it not suggest to a reasonable mind that there was a conspiracy and abuse of power by the executive then to persecute him? The court's decision reversing the sodomy charges certainly implies this, when it rejected Sukma's confession as being procured under unusual circumstances of detention and interrogation.

If it were reasonable to assume that there was such an executive abuse of power, how then would the victim, perceiving this, use his own position of power to avert and thwart the wider abuse of power perceived to be encircling and rolling over him?

A victim is expected to wear kid's glove to ward off punches with a knuckle-duster. It appears that abuse of power is a privilege reserved only for the executive, and not for any person perceiving that he is victimised.

How else can one explain the different legal outcomes of the two related and connected cases, from which lessons may be drawn?