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.
When Mr Jacob Zuma’s lawyer was asked about the origins of the tapes illegally and criminally handed over to the Zuma camp and then used by the NPA to drop charges against Mr Zuma he said that attorney-client priviledge prevented him from saying where the tapes came from.
Who is Mr Hulley’s client whom he is protecting?
Seems to me it is reasonable to ask whether Mr Hulley gave away the game with this comment. It strongly suggests that the tapes come from Mr Zuma himself. Could that be why there is attorney-client priviledge between the person handing over the tapes and Mr Hulley who received them. Or does Mr Hulley have other clients who have an interest in this case. Can he claim attorney-client priviledge when he was party to a crime and or covering up a crime?
So, when will the police begin investigating this crininal act of handing over and receiving the tapes? Will the NPA ever charge Mr Hulley and or Zuma or any other client of Mr Hulley for this criminal act?
I am sure they will. And I am sure Thabo Mbeki will soon admit that he was wrong on HIV and Aids, Xolela Mangcu will give his shares back to Tokyo Sexwale and the Independent Democrats will win the election.BACK TO TOP