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.
CHAMBERS OF Constitution Hill
JUSTICE D MOSENEKE Private Bag X1
DEPUTY CHIEF JUSTICE OF SOUTH AFRICA BRAAMFONTEIN
E Mail: email@example.com
Monday 15 August 2011
Yesterday the South African Broadcasting Corporation reported that in my address to the annual conference of the South African Chapter of the International Association of Women judges at North West University I said almost 90% of South Africa’s courts have not delivered judgment on cases before them.
That report is inaccurate.
I stressed to the judges and magistrates who attended the conference that the delay in the finalisation of cases may lead to injustice and that judges and magistrates are duty-bound to deliver judgments promptly. I added that almost 90% of complaints against judicial officers relate to judgments that had not been delivered promptly.
Clearly this does not mean that “almost 90% of South African Courts have not delivered judgment on cases before them.”
This inaccuracy in reporting is to be regretted because firstly the SABC appeared to televise the entire address and more importantly, by and large, Courts of this country do their work diligently and as promptly as it is reasonably possible.
Issued by: Dikgang Moseneke
Deputy Chief JusticeBACK TO TOP