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.
First, Mr Vavi is speaking the truth — corruption is real. Anyone denying it is living in a fool’s paradise. We are producing more scandals than our soccer team can score goals. Second, Mr Vavi is articulating thoughts and fears of the dejected electorate. Our partisan and docile Parliament cannot be trusted to defend democracy. One can’t help but think that P arliament’s duty is to protect the executive. In the absence of strong opposition parties, the likes of Mr Vavi are our prophets and voices of sanity. It is absurd for elected officials to live in opulence whilst the masses are trapped in poverty. Democracy cannot benefit the few and exclude the rest. – Dr Lucas Ntyintyane in a letter in Business DayBACK TO TOP