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)
15 March 2011

It is ironic that the dismissal of leave to appeal comes on the back of the suspension of Mr Paul Ngobeni, the legal advisor of the Minister of Defence  who no doubt had a hand in the ill fated strategy of the now unlawful dismissal notices. In SANDU’s view the same Ngobeni should not have been appointed in the first place given his dubious background. This point of view was simply compounded by the obnoxious and out of turn letter to Minister Manuel. Today’s finding should sound the final bell for Ngobeni. Ironically the Minister seems to be destined to follow the same flawed process in the possible termination of his services as the one Ngobeni had a hand in meeting out to soldiers. – Pikkie Greef, National Secretary of the SA National Defence Union

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