Kuala Lumpur High Court judge VT Singham said decisions by the court should never ever be influenced by political, corporate or commercial patronage, as well as private interests.

Justice Singham, who today delivered his judgment in Anwar's RM150 million defamation suit against Utusan Malaysia , touched on public expectations of the judiciary that it be independent.

NONE “It is essential and important to be mindful that the court's reputation for honesty and impartiality to the judicial oath and the sacred seat of justice must be maintained at all times in the discharge of judicial duty,” Justice Singham said after ruling in favour of Anwar.

“I am not prepared to compromise on the judicial oath that I have taken upon my elevation to the bench.

“This court will only act on the facts and the application of the law and not on speculation or personal sentiment in order find a case or try to make out a case in favour of the plaintiff or the defendants.”

Stating that the chair on which he sits is “sacred”, the judge said he would continue to maintain the seat as sacred until it is vacated in accordance with the constitutional requirement or should he elect to vacate the seat early with approval.

Justice Singham is currently the most senior High Court judge in the judiciary.

Although he did not specifically mention so in his judgment, his statement is nonetheless believed to be alluding to a write-up published on the Malay rights group Perkasa's blog, which attacked the judge's impartiality in the case.

A check on the Perkasa blog finds an article , that originated from another blog, which questions Justice Singham's judgments in several previous cases, where it claimed the judge had commonly adopted a pro-opposition stance.

The article also questioned Justice Singham's views on the issues of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender following the case, noting that the judge is not married.

Faith in justice: A pillar of democracy

Singham, in his judgment, further said the seat which he occupies demands that the court administer the law without fear or favour.

“Justice cannot be administered in dark or secrecy. This is an inescapable judicial task and is not an exercise of whim or will.

"A judge deciding a case should do so without any influence being brought to bear upon him to decide it one way or another by any agency, individual, or organisation outside himself,” he said.

“Faith in the administration of justice is one of the pillars on which democratic institution functions and sustains. To establish that faith, this court must do what is right.

“A decision cannot be based on personal sentiment of the presiding judicial officer or judge or in mechanical fashion or by traveling outside the evidence or taking into consideration extraneous matter.”

Justice Singham noted that public confidence is a necessary condition for the existence of an independent judiciary.

Citing several legal cases, the judge warned that without it, the judiciary cannot act.

“Public confidence in the judiciary is the most valuable asset the judiciary has. It is also one of the most valuable assets the nation has. The need to ensure confidence does not mean the need to ensure popularity.

“The need for public confidence is the need to create a feeling among the public that judges act objectively, in applying the laws neutrally, according to the system's fundamental values,” he said.

He added this does not mean the public must agree with all judicial decisions, but rather their confidence in the integrity of the decisions meted.

“When judges do law, not just the parties (involved), not just the law, but judges themselves stand on trial,” he said.

Court: Utusan defamed Anwar over LGBT remarks