After reading High Court judge Arifin Jaka's written judgment on the Anwar Ibrahim sodomy trial, I am thoroughly disgusted by the abysmal quality of the judgment.

The unsubstantiated testimony of the prosecution's star witness, Azizan Abu Bakar was described as truthful, credible and "solid as the Rock of Gibraltar" while any testimony by the defense was dismissed as absurd, incredible, fertile imagination, hearsay or some other prejudicial remark.

As Azizan's testimony was totally unsubstantiated, the judge seems to relying solely on his personal feeling and opinion that Azizan was a truthful and credible witness who had no reason to lie.

He seems to have forgotten that he had once scolded Azizan for "saying one thing now and another thing the next day" during the trial.

Having nothing concrete to grasp, the judge could only pepper his judgment with personal opinion statements such as "I believe", "I'm satisfied", "I'm convinced" without citing any grounds for such conviction.

The judge was quick to dismiss the testimonies of defense witnesses as unsubstantiated despite the fact that the defense had produced many witnesses to bolster its case of conspiracy. Their interlocking testimonies which painted a clear picture of conspiracy were all dismissed in disparaging terms.

However the testimony of the sole witness for the prosecution who had nothing and nobody to back him up save for the repudiated affidavit of a person who said he was forced to confess to a crime he did not commit was taken at face value despite his inability to stick consistently to his story.

Why was the same standard of proof not applied to the prosecution? Why is the judgment filled with all manner of speculative opinion?

Arifin Jaka's summary remarks says it all: "I am of the firm view that Azizan was speaking the truth ... he had nothing to gain whatsoever but stood to lose everything if his evidence was not true. Further, one cannot conceive that one would fabricate a serious charge of sodomy against one who was both the finance minister and deputy prime minister".

It is sad that a man could be convicted of a serious crime and jailed for nine years on nothing more substantial than the uncorroborated and unproven testimony of one accuser who in the judge's personal opinion, "had nothing to gain by lying".

This is circular logic to the extreme. By the same logic, should we then believe each and every accuser of vile crimes against another and dispense with time wasting trials because they stand to lose everything if they had lied?

Also, it is not for the judge to base his judgment on whether or not he can conceive that a person can commit such a crime against such and such a person. This is pure speculation and it has no place in a court of law where a man's freedom and reputation hang in the balance.

The fact that the judge had to draw comfort from these flawed arguments shows how painfully he has to scrape the bottom of the barrel to get some dregs to bolster his untenable conclusion.

Clearly it is not easy to convict an innocent man and back it up with logical, cogent arguments. In the end, the judgement is illogical, flimsy and unconvincing.

Are the public to be insulted with such low quality judgement? People will be more convinced than ever that Anwar was convicted on the basis of a show trial.