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 November 2012

The State proved that Thomson corruptly offered (the offer having been communicated to Shaik)

  • to give a benefit

  • which was not legally due

  • to a person, being Zuma,

  • who had been charged with duties, being the duties set out in s 96(2) of the Constitution

  • by virtue of the holding of the office of Deputy President of the RSA

  • with the intention to influence him

  • to commit or to do an act in relation to such duty. – SCA judgment in S v Shaik

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