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.
“I am so afraid. I have never stolen anything from anybody. Now I am being accused of stealing a piece of land. I have papers to prove that the government has approved the deed of sale. We are prepared to pay market value for this land and we are pleading with the government to not demolish our homes but to negotiate a settlement. I have R50 000 in the frozen bank account of the fraudster who was arrested – that can go to the government for the land. We did not know we were involved in a fraudulent deal. As it is I have taken out personal loans, bank loans…how will we pay these back while our homes are demolished?” – Nonhlanhla Pholo, whose house in Lenasia is earmarked for demolition, quoted by Gillian Schutte at SACSISBACK TO TOP