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 CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
In the matter between:
THE ECONOMIC FREEDOM FIGHTERS Applicant//
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:
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.BACK TO TOP