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)
28 September 2012

Malema’s rights to freedom of movement and assembly have undoubtedly been infringed. The decision to charge him a week before the opening of ANC leadership nominations does not merely look like an example of selective prosecution, it appears to be a celebration of it. It seems to be a deliberate and shocking demonstration of the capacity of Zuma’s faction to institute — and also to suspend — police investigations and criminal prosecutions. Moyo’s conclusion is that there is “clearly more than enough on the horizon to warrant putting South Africa on a Sadc security watch list — without ruling out (later) placing the beleaguered country on the agenda of the (Sadc) Organ Troika”. – Anthony Butler in Business Day

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