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.
[S]ince support for the ANC in KwaZulu-Natal is, in part, informed by the fact that, after Polokwane, the Zulu nationalist impulse was transferred from the IFP to the ANC, what will happen if a non-Zulu, such as Cyril Ramaphosa, is elected ANC president in 2017? Will the 2019 elections be the moment when the Zulu nationalist impulse shifts away from the ANC? This is the crux of the challenge that will face the ANC in the years and months leading up to its 2017 national conference. I was, therefore, not surprised to read in the Mail & Guardian on Friday that there is an ANC “caucus” in KwaZulu-Natal that does not want Ramaphosa to become the leader of the ANC. As they say in the province of my mother’s ancestors, “bafun’ ukumphuc’ isinkw’ emlonyeni” — they want to take bread out of Ramaphosa’s mouth just as he is about to swallow. There are two reasons worth highlighting about why this is happening so soon after Mangaung. First, it is about the consolidation of personal and political interests beyond the Zuma moment. Second, some members of the ANC are tribalists and some of these tribalists are in KwaZulu-Natal. – Aubrey Matshiqi in Business DayBACK TO TOP