When I was first approached to talk at this (Bar Council) forum, my specific assignment was a review of the Anwar saga and all cases related to the unfolding of that sorry tale. In fact the draft programme sent to me in no uncertain terms laid out the names 'Zainur/Anwar'.

Now that was a subject that excited emotions and set brother against brother. I expected in my review to catalogue, briefly, before you the abuses of the criminal justice system that had occurred over the last three years or so, and I qualify this, as I saw them.

One caveat. No two persons will see or approach an issue in exactly the same manner and therein lies the rub: What price inconsistency?

Somewhere along the way between the draft and this forum the topic got administratively hijacked and emerged suitably whitewashed into what you see it to be today: a bland, almost reverential dry review of the concept of adjudicative consistency.

And to compound things, the Bar Council went and labelled this shebang a 'colloquium', which is variously defined as an academic seminar! I almost feel as if I am expected to talk to you, after tea, when you are sated and tired, on the theory of stare decisis and the judicial glory of precedents.

I propose to do no such thing.

If you want an academic paper on the theory of stare decisis as it has been applied or not applied as the case may be in recent criminal cases, then that will have to wait for another day.

Besides there are always the law reports for you to look at and read when your time allows.

I propose to talk about the matter that was first intimated to me and confine myself to the Anwar/Sukma/Munawar/Nalla/Zainur saga [and not necessarily in that order] and examine whether consistency in the criminal justice system was compromised in those matters.

I expect you to go away from here today recognising the fact that consistency, whether adjudicative or otherwise, is foolish if it is not based on equality, integrity and justice; that consistency is not the private domain of courts and judges and hence limited only to that arena; and that you, the Bar and the Public Prosecutor's office, cannot wash your hands and turn a blind eye to the demands of collective responsibility for the wrongs carried out in the name of justice.

But first let's pose the Bar Council's question: Is consistency a virtue?