Ahmad is charged in court under the Internal Security Act (ISA) for treason. His lawyer makes an application to have the judge removed from the case as there might be a conflict of interest. The judge refuses to do so. Fine.

But then the judge asks who gave the instructions to have him removed. It could not have been the client, since he is inaccessible to the lawyer. And it can't be the families, because the lawyer is not supposed to take instructions from persons other than the client.

And it certainly cannot be the lawyer acting of his own accord.

There are two problems here:

1) The judge somehow did not find it ironic that the lawyer is not even allowed to meet his own client.

2) The lawyer cannot defend the case if he cannot receive instructions from his client. Neither can he act on the instructions of others or by himself. So what is there to defend?

Aren't we now pointlessly running around in a circle? So why do we even bother wasting public funds on such funny trials?

But then, hey, what do I know... I'm just an ignorant Malaysian citizen.