Quote of the week

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.

Khampepe J
Zuma v Secretary of the Judicial Commission of Inquiry into Allegations of State Capture, Corruption and Fraud in the Public Sector Including Organs of State and Others (CCT 52/21) [2021] ZACC 28 (17 September 2021)
7 April 2010

The courts can help to safeguard democracy. But if they are used to impose on the racial majority the will of a minority, majority politicians will resist and the independence of the courts will be destroyed. All of which explains why the court actions against the singing of a struggle song by African National Congress (ANC) Youth League leader Julius Malema are bad for democracy, the constitution — and minorities themselves. One reason why it is bad for democracy is that it may have enabled Malema to escape accounting to society. Those who tell him what to do knew a diversion was needed to draw attention away from his personal finances. The claim that the Pan Africanist Congress did not organise Sharpeville did not have the desired effect of rallying the ANC behind him and the song was no doubt seen — accurately — to be a more effective method. – Steven Friedman in Business Day

SHARE:     
BACK TO TOP
2015 Constitutionally Speaking | website created by Idea in a Forest