The whole episode of Justice Muhammad Kamil Awang's saying that he was directed in mid- 1999 by someone higher in the judicial hierarchy to strike off the petitions challenging the Likas state elections result, is shrouded in confusion though everyone has something to say against it and the police are urged to commence investigations. Commence investigations for what offence?

If proven, such pressure, inducement or persuasion designed to influence a judge in the conduct of proceedings, is contempt of court or maybe even abuse of power.

However, when the person alleged to have perpetrated this "contempt" happened to be a judge in the higher echelons of judicial hierarchy, some problems are immediately evident.

1) Whether a judge can find another judge for contempt on a episode two years ago?

2) If the telephone conversation was not taped, a simple denial that such a conversation took place would suffice on the part of the person alleged to have interfered.

If there were no evidence except for one retiring judge's word against another retired judge's word, who will be the third judge to judge, which of the other two judges' contrary versions should be believed?

Are all other judges to be brought in as witnesses whether that they too had been subject to such similar directions?

3) Even if believed, what would the impact be on the judiciary for such a revelation? What is the implication on cases decided in the past in which there were such interferences? Will the cases be re-opened for re-trial?

4) What is the implication on the reputation of other judges coming out as witnesses to whom such directions had been given but unlike justice Muhammad Kamil Awang, did not disclose them (until now as witnesses) and how would they explain why they did not disqualify themselves from hearing the cases then?

5) Then again the judge of a higher ranking who allegedly interfered could say he was just expressing a legal opinion from an administrative superior to his other brethren as to why some cases were likely to be a waste of public funds in the sense there was really no case in law.

6) There is also a counter argument - why wasn't the allegation brought out at the time it was made two years ago, and if now, why through a judgment to which such an irregular incidence is strictly extraneous and may be construed (as it is done now by the side to which judgment was delivered against) as possibly presiding judge's partiality in deciding the case?

Justice Muhammad Kamil Awang's revelation is good as a deterrent against future interference. But as to investigations, it has to be considered carefully because for the above reasons, the outcome of such investigations - no matter how they will fan Malaysians' new found euphoria of transparency, governance and judicial independence from political interference to greater heights - also opens the Pandora box that may do more harm than good to the judicial institution.

The authorities should think carefully the implications before they commence investigations. What good does it do to our judicial institution or for that matter the government, but only to satisfy the thirst for blood of many whose agenda is to hound the perpetrator especially when he had held high office and also the government (because if found guilty, it will raise the question why such a person was allowed by the government to hold such high office in the first place)?