I don't know why the doyen of the Malaysian Bar, HL Wrigglesworth, wants the Bar Council to call for an extraordinary general meeting to consider what can be done about the present unsatisfactory state of the judiciary.

All the Bar and the Bar Council could do is to maintain their/its own independence by passing the appropriate resolutions. (On record, the Malaysian Bar had censured Hamid Omar for his role in Salleh Abas' dismissal as lord president and had excluded Hamid from all its social functions; the Bar Council had also expressed its concern over the irregularities in the trial, detention and prosecution of Anwar Ibrahim, his speechwriter Dr Munawar Annees and his adopted brother Sukma Darmawan and also criticised the use of court contempt proceedings against lawyers Zainur Zakaria and Tommy Thomas).

Let the judiciary worry about its own independence, and image if it cares.

Critics are already saying that the Bar Council is trying to use the excuse of Rule of Law to perpetuate the Rule of Lawyers.

It seems as though the minds of many lawyers (except the more 'open' one of Mah Weng Kwai) and civil rights champions have already been made up — that anything other than a dismissal of Anwar's appeal (for trial irregularities below) will mean the decision is wrong in law and the judiciary is not independent. Period. No detailed analysis of Federal Court judgment is necessary.

Lawyers, and not judges, might as well as try the case.

They just don't take into account or perhaps have forgotten about Chief Justice Mohamed Dzaiddin Abdullah's hitherto unimpeachable reputation and record for fairness and integrity subsisting among the same legal fraternity, and the effects that had on other judges, immediately preceding the Federal Court's dismissal of the appeal.

So this will be a lesson, and the price the judiciary has to pay for losing its reputation of independence in the past. Once lost, it is not easily recovered.

Coming back to what else could the lawyers do or prepare to do as far as the independence of judiciary or lack thereof is concerned, the fact is that there is nothing much.

The Bar controls not the judiciary, and does not appoint, dismiss or discipline its members.

The Bar Council cannot, by way of disapprobation, resort to pass a resolution and urge lawyers to boycott the courts. That would be contempt of court or even seditious for inciting against administration of justice.

Most importantly, many of these lawyers still want to ply their trade as lawyers in court to make a living and maintain cordial relationship with the judiciary in facilitation of their professional work.

The Bar EGM is the venue for the lawyers on group basis to take the morally elevated ground to make high-faluting noise about the judiciary's lack of independence. For some, to get some media publicity. For others, it is also fun to make mincemeat out of Mah Weng Kwai who has deflected somewhat the ire reserved for the Chief Justice to himself, for his statements, or rather misstatements, intended to bring closure to the Anwar's case.

But at the end of the day, at a personal level many of them still covet personal rapport with the judiciary for a favourable determination of their clients' cases.

What gives? Some judicial independence!