For many of the legal profession, especially after observing the Nallakaruppan episode, there are serious concerns as to whether Anwar will get a fair trial. Many lawyers and members of the public in fact cynically already "know" the outcome of the trial in the sense that there will be a conviction on at least one count. It is clear that this is politically necessary to put Anwar away physically and politically. 

A question immediately arises as to the fairness and independence of the trial in the process of selection of the judge itself for the following reasons. The High Court of Kuala Lumpur is organised into divisions, Criminal, Civil, Commercial and Special Powers. Each division has several courts with sitting judges in each. Cases filed or registered in these courts are then heard by the judge sitting in that particular court unless for some reason he disqualifies himself from hearing the case or transfers the case to another. The process of transfer is usually transparent and upon the application of the parties involved. The system is set up in this way to prevent allegations of lawyers attempting to have their cases heard by a particular judge or "fixing" the judge. Similarly in the Criminal Division, there are two sitting judges, Dato K.C. Vohrah and Dato Wahab Patail. Anwar's lawyers were told by the Criminal Registry that his case was registered in both courts. Judge Wahab Patail is clearly disqualified from hearing Anwar's case as he was involved in Nallakaruppan's case. No explanation has been given as to why the senior judge in the Criminal Division, i.e. Vohrah is not hearing Anwar's case. Vohrah is known to the legal profession as an independent judge. Is this why he is not hearing the case? He is the most senior High Court judge in Malaysia and has plenty of criminal trial experience. Augustine on the other hand was recently elevated as a High Court judge in May this year and was transferred from Malacca very recently to the Special Powers Division in the High Court. How and why has he been picked in such an arbitrary manner by the Chief Justice to hear Anwar's case? Is this a case of the prosecution fixing their judge to obtain a particular verdict? The facts would suggest so. 
 

a) Bail 

Augustine Paul denied Anwar bail after he claimed trial to all the charges on 5 October 1998. The prosecution objected to bail on the ground that there were allegations of tampering with witnesses by Anwar. No clear or concrete evidence was produced to the court of such tampering- it remained a mere allegation. However Augustine explained that his denial of bail was based on the prosecution allegation AND the fact that some of the charges against Anwar involved tampering with witnesses in the very facts alleged. The judge seemed to be completely overlooking the fact that the charges allege tampering by Anwar using his power in his capacity as Deputy Prime Minister. He is now no more the Deputy Prime Minister -hence such alleged tampering in that manner could no longer arise! The denial of bail for these offences is unprecedented. All previous accused charged under this particular Ordinance for corruption have been allowed bail. The denial of bail looks clearly politically motivated. 

b) The judge then went on to make a number of rulings against the interest of the defence such as only allowing three out of eight lawyers to visit Anwar in detention at any time. Only two designated lawyers would be allowed to speak to Anwar in court at any time. When the defence asked that 5 plainclothes policemen placed around Anwar in the dock stand at the back of the court, the judge said "he did not want to interfere with security matters". 
 

The High Court only allowed a trial date of less than one month from October 5, 1998. The date given by the Court was based on a date suggested by the Deputy Public Prosecutor. Despite a request by lawyers for Anwar for a trial date of two months from October 6, 1998, it was turned down by the Court, although the Court did rule, after repeated requests by the Anwar's lawyers, that if there was still inadequate time for preparation of the defence, the lawyers for Anwar could write to the Court for an extension of time. Malaysian courts generally allow criminal trial dates of 3 months or more to enable the accused's lawyers to prepare their defence. There was greater need for time in the Anwar case as he was incommunicado from September 20, 1998 detention date. 
 

So many police officers (in plainclothes or in uniform) in Court, were stationed in Court. It is believed that they constituted the majority in Court, thus preventing many family members and reporters from attending Court. Unlike most court cases, where any member of the public can come to court, the police prevented members of the public from coming to hear the Anwar case, saying that they had orders to do so. 
 

As of October 10, 1998, starting from the time he was sacked as DPM, eight of Anwar's team of lawyers had been questioned by the police using provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. On the pretext of asking for information in respect of police investigations into alleged tampering of witnesses, police attempted to question Anwar's lawyers on matters directly or indirectly related to his charges. Several lawyers in the Anwar defence team are being tailed by the Special Branch (secret police). Lawyers believe that their house telephones, office telephones and even hand telephones are being monitored by the police. 
 

a) The Prime Minister on October 21, 1998 is reported to have said that the Government will not entertain any application by foreigners to be observers at the forthcoming trial of Dato 'Seri Anwar "as the presence of foreign observers will put pressure on this country's judges". This statement gives the impression that attendance in Court is at the discretion of the Executive branch of Government. By making this remark, the Government of Dr Mahathir is actually given a directive to the judiciary. 

b) It is not for the Government to decide whether any one ought to be given observer status at any trial. Such a decision can only be made by the Court. In the Lim Guan Eng appeal [wherein he appealed against his conviction for sedition] in August 1998, the Federal Court granted observer status to representatives of Amnesty International and International Commission of Jurists, after an application was made by defence counsel. 

c) Under section 8 of the Malaysian Criminal Procedure Code, the place in which any criminal Court is held for the purpose of inquiring or trying any offence shall be deemed an open and public Court to which the public generally have access.