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)
12 April 2010

History cannot be written (or spoken about) to make the current generation feel good about the present. Societies cannot live in peace unless they are prepared to delve into all that has gone before — to ask the uncomfortable question, point the accusing finger, challenge the sacred myth. This is why, sadly, during this, the country’s centenary year, we have lost an opportunity to build deeper understanding of each other. – Prof Peter Vale in Business Day

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