Still the courts couldnt find any penetration........

The Federal Court's rejection yesterday of Anwar Ibrahim's application to have Sodomy II struck out takes another leaf from its newfangled tradition of upending precedent.

Anwar's lawyers had sought to have the case struck out on grounds that the medical records showed no evidence of penetration of his accuser's rectum.

Judicial precedent in rape and sodomy cases holds that if there is no penetration, there can be no grounds for conviction.

And who determines if there has been penetration or not? The doctors, of course. In Anwar's case, not one but three arrived at the same finding of no penetration. No penetration, no conviction. This judicial precedent sits with a little click in the listener's mind, like the precise and gentle sound as a well-made wooden box snicks shut. The apex court's shutout of precedent is hugely disquieting.

A few months ago, it gave distressing evidence of this tendency by ignoring the established precedent in a dispute over who has the power to remove a chief minister. In that instance, the court was asked to referee a dispute over who - the ruler or the state legislative assembly - had the power to remove Mohd Nizar Jamaluddin as menteri besar of Perak.

Judicial precedent ignored

The precedent for adjudication of the dispute over whether Pakatan Rakyat's Nizar or Barisan Nasional's Zambri Abdul Kadir had the right to be MB had been long established. It was laid down in the Stephen Kalong Ningkan case in Sarawak in the mid-1960s and upheld in the Joseph Pairin Kitingan case in Sabah a decade later. It established that only a no-confidence vote in the state assembly can remove a chief minister.

The Federal Court blithely ignored this precedent by arriving at a decision which suggested that Malaysia is not so much a parliamentary democracy as an absolute monarchy. In doing so, it sacrificed hallowed precedent to power, established jurisprudential theory to politics.

Yesterday's decision in Sodomy II continues in this vein of triumphalism.

The court didn't even condescend to explain and substantiate its decision which has the effect of making the transgressive the norm and precedent the irregularity. It is judicial reasoning on stilts and bodes the collapse of our system of constitutional government based on the separation of countervailing powers.- Terence Netto

source:malaysiakini

It's not Anwar who fails in the sodomy case, but the whole judicial system itself, has been sodomized by the gomen so that the judges got to play by the rule and get Anwar at all costs.........

cheers.