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)
31 August 2010

This morning it was agreed that Nyami Booi, Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Defence and Military Veterans, will forward a letter to Deputy President Kgalema Motlanthe, Leader of Government Business, advising him that the portfolio committee:
• has received guidance from the Max Sisulu, Speaker of the National Assembly, that parliament has the power to require any person or institution to produce reports;
• is now formally requesting that the interim reports be produced within a reasonable period of thirty days;
• that until the interim reports are received the portfolio committee has taken a decision to suspend deliberations on the Defence Amendment Bill; and;
• that in the event the interim reports are not produced the portfolio committee reserves the right, as a measure of last resort, to compel cabinet to produce the interim reports. – Statement of DA MP David Maynier

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