I refer to the Malaysiakini report Abdul Razak Baginda acquitted .

Even though having only a layman's knowledge about the legal procedures and its intricacies and jargon, I think the whole trial lacked proper conduct and was not carried out in the due process of the law.

The prosecution too was seen or appeared to be working with one hand tied behind its back.

A star witness simply disappeared. The prosecution should have asked for a deferment of the trial until this important person is brought forward to give evidence.

If he was called in, a lot of speculative comments and statements could have been questioned and clarified.

As to why the prosecution did not insist for a postponement for not gaining access to vital evidence which could be a turning point in this highly acclaimed case, is left to everyone's imagination.

The judge should have called the defendant to make his defence when there were a lot of alleged accusations piled against him. This way, the prosecution is given the opportunity to cross- examine the defence witnesses and question the defendant at length within legal guidelines and permitted by the judge to get to the bottom of the matter.

Anyone can be subpoenaed to give evidence if deemed important, necessary and having some connection to the case by the legal teams representing the defendant and prosecution. No stones should be left unturned if we want justice to be served.

The acquittal of Abdul Razak Baginda gives a lot of room for hearsay and speculation especially when there are several questions being raised that really need to be answered. It is always believed that there is no smoke without fire.

Even a top and prominent politician is implicated and the prosecution should have been given a ‘no holds barred’ sort of freedom to question this person of any knowledge or involvement in this case. No one is above the law or immune to the law.

No matter how remotely one may seem to be connected or mentioned, should be looked into and the truth established beyond any reasonable doubt. Do we see political interference and influence in this case?

How can one have any confidence in our judicial system when it is seen to be compromising on how a court proceeding should be conducted?

Even an untrained eye or mind can detect certain irregularities in the court proceedings and in this particular trial, there seem to be a number of loopholes.

Now the prosecution may want to appeal which happens in any normal situation when a verdict is given. In the first place, the prosecution was given a chance which they failed quite miserably to use and going by past cases, the chances are almost zero for reopening the case.

In all honesty and to be be fair to the victim and family, we should ask, has justice been really served?