Quote of the week
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.
Zuma v Secretary of the Judicial Commission of Inquiry into Allegations of State Capture, Corruption and Fraud in the Public Sector Including Organs of State and Others (CCT 52/21) [2021] ZACC 28 (17 September 2021)
EFF Notice of Motion to Con Court on Nkandla
IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
In the matter between:
THE ECONOMIC FREEDOM FIGHTERS Applicant//
and
THE SPEAKER OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA First Respondent
PRESIDENT JACOB GEDLEYIHLEKISA ZUMA Second Respondent
NOTICE OF MOTION
TAKE NOTICE that in terms of the provisions of sections 167(4)(e), 167(6)(a) of the Constitution and rule 18 of the rules of the Constitutional Court, the applicant makes application to this Court for final relief in the following terms:
- It is declared that the National Assembly has failed to fulfil its obligations in accordance with the provisions of sections 55(2) and 181 of the Constitution to ensure that all executive organs of state in the national sphere of government are accountable to it and to maintain oversight of the exercise of National Executive authority in that it has failed to ensure that the President of the Republic of South Africa, Mr J G Zuma (President Zuma), has complied with and given effect to the findings and remedial action ofthe Public Protector in her report dated March 2014, under the heading: “Secure in Comfort: Report on an investigation into allegations of impropriety and unethical conduct relating to the installation and implementation of security measures by the Department of Public Works at and in respect of the private residence of President Zuma at Nkandla in the Kwa-Zulu Natal province”.(This is hereafter referred as the Public Protector Report).
- It is declared that President Zuma in his capacity as Head of the National Executivehas failed to fulfil his constitutional obligations in that he has failed to implement the findings and remedial action in the Public Protector report.
- President Zuma is directed to give effect and to comply with the remedial action contained in the Public Protector Report, within 30 days of the order of this Court.
- Directing that costs be paid by any person opposing the application.
- Granting further and/or alternative relief.
TAKE NOTICE THAT the founding affidavit of Mr Floyd Nyiko Shivambu annexed hereto and its annexures shall be used in support of this application.
TAKE NOTICE FURTHER that the Chief Justice is requested to issue directions concerning the manner in which this application shall be dealt with.
DATED AT JOHANNESBURG ON THIS THE 4th DAY OF AUGUST 2015.
