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.
When Menzi Simelani was appointed head of the NPA we labelled it “An Appalling Choice”. We said it was the stuff of which our worst nightmares are made. We said at the time, the real problem, among many others, was that Simelane had said he believed the NPA head must bow to executive authority, i.e. the president, when it comes to making decisions. On the contrary, the Constitution is explicit that the office of the NPA does not bow to anyone. It bows only to the “Constitution and the law”. But now we know that Simelane not only does not see South Africa’s ultimate law as necessarily binding. He is indeed now meddling in it. – Stephen Grootes at Daily MaverickBACK TO TOP