High drama unfolded o­ne day before Anwar Ibrahim's application for judicial review was supposed to be heard by the Federal Court o­n March 18. This review is over the Federal Court's own judgment o­n July 10, 2002, which rejected Anwar's appeal against his 'corruption' conviction (his first trial).

On March 17, the attorney-general (AG) suddenly requested that the panel of judges hearing this judicial review be enlarged from three to five judges. The new chief justice (CJ) Ahmad Fairuz - who incidently took over this post o­n the very same day - instantly gave his approval, as reflected by the fact that by lunch time, Anwar's lawyer had already received a fax notification that the hearing was postponed due to the decision to increase the number of judges.

This abrupt and unprecedented move by the court begets many serious questions.

Why did the AG ask for an increase of judges o­nly hours before the hearing?

On what ground of considerations did the CJ give his instant approval to this last-minute request?

This CJ decision looks strange indeed when considered against the fact that Anwar's repeated requests for a panel of five judges to hear his earlier appeal in the Federal Court were turned down.

Granted that the Anwar trial is of such paramount importance that it merits a five-judge panel. And that is why the court should have granted Anwar's requests then. Regrettably, it did not.

Since the court had earlier rejected the idea of a five-judge panel for the appeal hearing, what possible justification can it have now to convene such a panel, considering the fact that the main legal battle was fought at the appeal hearing, not in this judicial review?

Besides, there are insufficient Federal Court judges to form even the current panel of three (one of them is 'borrowed' from the Court of Appeal) due to some of the Federal Court judges having sat in the appeal stages earlier, and any enlargement of the current panel will entail further 'borrowing' from the lower court, precipitating the curious phenomena that a Federal Court panel is formed by a majority of judges from the Court of Appeal. Hence, it looks even more odd now that the court should decide to have a panel of five at this stage, instead of having it in the last appeal.

Strangest of all, why was such an important decision made o­nly o­n the eve of the hearing?

While o­nly the CJ and AG could answer this series of questions, it is important for the public to take note of a related development that took place a few days earlier. O­n March 14, Anwar submitted fresh evidence that significantly reinforced his earlier accusation that the prosecutors (one of whom is the current AG) attempted to coerce Anwar's tennis partner Nalla Karuppan to fabricate false evidence against Anwar, using the death penalty as threat. In this latest affidavit, Anwar also submitted that the new evidence had vitiated trial judge Augustine Paul's judgment o­n this issue.

Needless to say, this latest evidence has the potential of not o­nly overturning the Federal Court's earlier judgment, but also causing criminal investigations to be initiated o­n the current AG.

One cannot help but ask: is it a case of lack of confidence o­n the present panel of three (Abdul Malek Ahmad, Siti Norma Yaacob and Court of Appeal judge Denis O­ng) to make a proper judgment, or is it a tactic to delay hearing so that a solution could be found to deal with the new evidence filed by Anwar?

The newly appointed CJ Ahmad Fairuz has vowed to cleanse the judiciary of corruption and to create "a system that is very transparent". Now is the first great opportunity for him to honour this pledge - justify his latest decision to postpone the case.

In view of the many instances of high level political conspiracy revealed during the trial, o­ne tends to be suspicious of any unusual happening of a political nature that coincides in timing to the latest court manouevre.