I am most inspired by the comments made by Manjeet Singh Dhillon in his letter 'Call made, advice given - only justice left' (June 14) about the exciting developments of Justice Muhammad Kamils's most admirable revelation about the call that he received from his "superior".

To quote Manjeet, "It is no more a question of whether such a call was made or what was said in that call. That is all beyond dispute now. It was made, and made by Eusoff to one of his subordinates"

We have heard the reasons or excuses given by Eusoff. But two questions remain to be answered:

1) He has in essence said that's its 'normal' for a [Chief Justice] to do what he did. "Normal" here need not mean only in election petition cases. What then would be the role of the highest appellate court of Malaysia, the Federal Court, when the then CJ of the Federal Court could "give a decisive law lecture" to a judge on a pertinent and determinative point of law?

If he felt 'obligatory' to tell the Sabah judge one or two legal precedents, what happened to his oath of office to hear all appeals before him according to law? Was he trying to reduce the backlog of cases in Federal Court?

2) In Anwar's case, there was a legal issue whether the police (under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Home Affairs) was duty bound to obey or follow the directive of the then deputy prime minister or finance minister.

Somehow the court found (in essence) in the affirmative - otherwise on this point alone, the accused would have been entitled to an acquittal. Now, is the Sabah judge bound to follow the alleged 'directive' (which was denied by the caller) of his 'superior'? Well, we can guess.