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 October 2010

Western Cape High Court Judge Dennis Davis says the JSC’s recently-published criteria for the appointment of judges are ‘simply not good enough’. Business Day notes the criteria were applied for the first time earlier this month during interviews by the JSC. Davis, speaking at a debate organised by the Constitutional Court Clerks Alumni Association last night, said some of the latest appointments raised ‘troubling questions’, such as whether the JSC was looking for more deference to the government from SA’s judges. He reportedly said it was also essential that the public is informed how the criteria are being implemented. ‘Simply putting those (criteria) out there, in the incoherent way that they have, is simply not good enough.

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