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)
27 September 2010

As for President Zuma, I doubt he has “dealt” with Malema the way the papers have been suggesting. We will see. Durban exposed his weaknesses rather than strengths. Speaking in code to an organisation you supposedly run doesn’t sound like leadership to me and nothing he says is going to happen ever seems to happen. Remember those “street committees” ANC branches were going to form after Polokwane to protect us all? The one thing Zuma cannot live with is certainty. The moment he supports a policy position he opens himself up to attack from factions who don’t. It’s why he announced yesterday he was going to head an investigation into everything in the economy — it means there’s to be no certainty about anything except the fact that he doesn’t have a position on anything. It’ll always be “under investigation”. – Peter Bruce in Business Day

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