Justice should not o­nly be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done, so goes an old maxim.

For the layperson, be it the city or a village, he is not interested in the legalese used by the judges in arriving at a court decision. For him, whatever sentenced meted must suffice the offences committed.

One can say that the view of the layperson in this matter represents the views of his peers and his dissatisfaction also depicts the frustrations felt by his fellow citizens.

In the history of judiciary, judges always had the inherent discretionary powers to right the wrong, or to make some adjustments where a strict interpretation of the law may result in injustice.

And at the end of the day, both the judges and the man o­n the street are also aware that justice may be tempered with mercy.

Jeering at the justice

As such, it is then understandable when a group of people sitting in the Court of Appeal gallery started jeering at three appellate judges at the end of ex-deputy prime minister Anwar Ibrahim's appeal against his sodomy charge.

The same sentiments were also seen reverberating outside the court. People were dissatisfied in the manner justice was rendered. Accusations that the judges had acted under orders were made and their qualifications questioned.

For the record, o­n April 18, the three Court of Appeal judges dismissed Anwar's appeal against the nine years' jail sentenced imposed by the High Court in 2000. They also dismissed the appeal by a co-accused, Anwar's adopted brother Sukma Dermawan Sasmitaat Madja, sentencing him to two counts of six years' jail and four strokes of rotan

Sukma's bail was also revoked and the court rejected both Anwar and Sukma's application for a bail pending an appeal to the Federal Court.

For a neutral bystander, it may not be the Court of Appeal judgment that is disappointing, but the manner the three justices acted after disposing their oral judgment.

End result the same

When the defendants requested for an oral bail and a stay of execution applications after the dismissal of the appeal, the judges adjourned the hearing temporarily, saying that they needed to deliberate o­n the matter.

However 30 minutes later, Anwar's lawyers were informed that the judges were not going to appear in the courtroom to hear any oral applications. The reason given was that a proper formal bail application must be lodged in the court registry before the judges can deliberate o­n the matter.

Given no choice, Anwar's and Sukma's lawyers sought the assistance of the Chief Justice, who must have given some instructions to the three judges as they immediately summoned the lawyers and prosecutors to their chambers.

While no o­ne knows what were the Chief Justice's instructions to the judges and what the three judges told the lawyers, the judges nevertheless agreed to hear the bail application.

But after hearing lengthy submission o­n the matter, the three judges unanimously dismissed the bail application and ordered the defendants to file formal applications.

Thus the end result was the same, even after the endless rigmarole to obtain a bail application hearing for the two accused persons no bail, no stay of execution.

For the judges to 'gerrymander' the question of Anwar's bail o­nly goes to strengthen Anwar's accusation that they were "spineless judges".

Again, it is stressed that while o­ne is not questioning the judges' decision to dismiss the appeal, the same cannot be said of the way they handled the proceedings that followed.

Judicial activism

A man is presumed innocent until proven guilty is another overused maxim but little of this was evident last Friday.

By being a little less rigid, the judges could have heard the bail and stay of execution applications immediately after the proceedings - which is also the norm - and could have dismissed them summarily, although many may argue that bail should be granted as the severity of the offence allegedly committed here is not as grave as, say a murder.

The judges need not have acted in a manner that raises questions of their independence. They have unnecessarily invited criticisms over their behaviour. This is especially evident when the judges took a 30-minute break, o­nly to decide against hearing any applications.

Of course, the judge's defence will be that they strictly applied the letters of the law, but as mentioned earlier, justice can be tempered with mercy.

The judges must well remember that they can always indulge in judicial activism in order to grant the alleged offenders an extra mile to ensure that they are not unjustly punished.

Perhaps it is this area of the law that the new Chief Justice must concentrate to educate his judges in being more 'human-centric' - and not 'rule-by-the-book' - dispenser of justice.

K Kabilan is chief news editor of malaysiakini.