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 Ministry of State Security has noted with concern the ongoing media onslaught on the Protection of Information Bill debate. After the public hearings on the bill, the Minister for State Security, Dr Siyabonga Cwele requested additional time to consider the submissions made, this owing to the seriousness of the issues at hand. What is concerning is the tone of the debate which suggests that the work on this bill is complete and that Parliament has already made its pronouncements on the matter. This perception is clearly not true and mischievous on the part of some who are participating in the debate. An additional element of concern is the ‘war-talk’ that forms part of the media debate, as well as personal attacks on members of the adhoc committee working on the bill. This type of engagement is unwarranted and does nothing to add value to the debate and the work that is currently underway. If anything, it is dangerous and misguided. – Statement issued by the Ministry of State Security spokesperson, Brian Dube, in an attempt to intimidate and silence critics of the BillBACK TO TOP