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 beard 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 is a case of the prosecution fixing their judge to obtain a particular verdict? The facts would suggest so.