As seductive as certain perspectives of international law may appear to those who disagree with the outcome of the interpretative exercise conducted by this Court in the contempt judgment, sight must not be lost of the proper place of international law, especially in respect of an application for rescission. The approach that my Brother adopts may be apposite in the context of an appeal, where a court is enjoined to consider whether the court a quo erred in its interpretation of the law. Although it should be clear by now, I shall repeat it once more: this is not an appeal, for this Court’s orders are not appealable. I am deeply concerned that seeking to rely on articles of the ICCPR as a basis for rescission constitutes nothing more than sophistry.
The enormity of what the DA seeks to achieve in this application, particularly the injustice and unfairness to Mr Zuma, should not be overlooked. He has been investigated with all his documents, bank accounts and private conduct being exposed to scrutiny since 2001, a well-considered NPA decision not to prosecute him made in 2003, a decision to prosecute him taken in 2005 which came to naught when the case was struck from the roll when the Prosecution in August 2006 unsuccessfully sought a postponement, a December 2007 decision to prosecute him followed by a March 2009 decision not to continue with such prosecution in respect of essentially the same core charges and the same core evidence. The Applicant now seeks to review the 2009 decision so that another decision must be taken to prosecute Mr Zuma in 2010 and some future date. – Michael Hulley, in his replying affidavit to the DA review applicationBACK TO TOP