It is a fallacy to interpret the recent acquittals of Anwar Ibrahim and Sukma Darmawan Sasmitaat Madja by the Federal Court on sodomy charges as a return to independence of the judiciary in Malaysia. In fact, it would be dangerous to do so.

Anwar was charged for sodomising Azizan Abu Bakar on one night between the months of January and March 1993 at Tivoli Villa in Kuala Lumpur. Sukma was charged with two offences, ie, for abetting Anwar's act with Azizan and for sodomising Azizan on that same night. Anwar and Sukma were tried jointly. They were convicted by the High Court. Anwar was sentenced to nine years' imprisonment, such sentence to run consecutively after the expiry of his sentence of six years' imprisonment for corrupt practices.

Sukma was sentenced to six years' imprisonment and two strokes of the whip for each of the two charges. However, his sentences of imprisonment were to run concurrently. This decision was subsequently affirmed by the Court of Appeal.

The Federal Court on Sept 2, 2004 decided, by a majority of 2-1, to set aside the convictions arrived at in the the sodomy trial. Abdul Hamid Mohamad FCJ and Tengku Baharudin Shah Tengku Mahmud JCA formed the majority judgment. Rahmah Hussain FCJ was in the minority. The majority said that this case was "different from any other case that we know of". They also commented that there seemed "to be so many unusual things that happened regarding the arrest and the confession" of Sukma.

Since June 7, 1999 when the sodomy trial began, many ordinary Malaysians who followed the case also felt the same way. That is some five years ago. They too voiced the opinion that the case was unusual and were disturbed by the decision to convict Anwar and Sukma. Some of the disturbing features of the case are as follows: