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.
In the MOU I signed on behalf of South Africa in 2007, nowhere appears a commitment to plan, to implement disarmament, demilitarisation and reintegration. They appear nowhere and in fact, minister, you yourself, in a reply to a question put to you in Parliament on February 10 2011, you told Parliament that South Africa’s involvement in the security of the CAR followed a request by President Francois Bozize to assist the CAR’s defence force to upgrade their military capabilities. You then said subsequent to that, that an MOU was signed, and then accepted by Cabinet on August 29 2008. The issue of planning and implementation of disarmament, demilitarisation and reintegration is nowhere in this memorandum. The first time I became aware of it is when the president announced this year in February that he had deployed 400 troops to the CAR for that purpose of planning and implementation of disarmament, demilitarisation and integration. What happened between 2007 and this time – there must have been a change in my view. There must have been something else negotiated to change the MOU I had signed in 2007 to bring in this question of demilitarisation.When did that change happen? – Cope MP Mosiuoa Lekota on the CAR fiascoBACK TO TOP