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)
2 June 2012

Bang ’em up! Hanging’s too good for them! MPs turned on the three Murdoch employees who are believed to have lied to the Commons culture committee. And pretty comprehensive fibs they seem to have been. Porkies, whoppers, fabrications, terminological inexactitudes – people with noses so long you could have hung your duvet covers on them to dry. If they do decide to lock up the Wapping Three, and they have a perfect – if ancient – legal right to do exactly that, the trio will be the first malfeasants to be jugged by parliament for 132 years. MPs were debating a short motion to refer the culture committee’s report to the committee on standards and privileges, which is stuck with the job of deciding whether the three were lying, and if so, what should be done. Presumably they will get something on the gamut between being forced to apologise and chemical castration. – Simon Hoggart in The Guardian

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