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)
30 March 2012

Mr Manyi must have realised that the DA had a point because two days later, on Wednesday 28 March, an email was sent to all government communicators which stated the following:

Dear Colleague,

A few days ago the GCIS sent you guidelines on the suggested response to the Democratic Alliance parliamentary question with respect to trips undertaken by government officials to Bloemfontein in December 2011 and January 2012. Please do not respond using the suggested guidelines until further notice. An email will be sent tomorrow morning providing clarity on way forward.

Until then, please do not respond to the question and do contact me if you have any queries.

We apologise for any inconvenience this may have caused and assure you that clarity will be provided by 09h00 tomorrow morning.

Regards

Neo Momodu

The new set of guidelines sent out this morning offers an entirely new argument as to why each ministry should not answer the set of questions posed by the DA. The old line that only officials who “happened” to be in Bloemfontein attended the celebration and that that those who did would somehow gain “humility” from the experience is gone. The new line is that “a number of state agencies and departments were mandated to make preparations as part of the courtesies extended to any President/Head of State visiting a country.” It adds that “officials from different departments were deployed to ensure the smooth running of the event.” – Press statement by Wilmot James about the use of state resources for the ANC centenary party.

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