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.

Khampepe J
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)
16 February 2010

Helen Zille responds

Helen Zille is trying to dig herself out of the hole she got herself into by claiming the Lennit Max sex scandal was a private matter. She responded to my criticism of her and I posted her response here. My short response, pointing out the similarities between the Max case and the Manto Tshabalala-Msimang cases is here. Judge for yourself whether she had dug herself deeper into a ditch or has shown principled and courageous leadership….

SHARE:     
BACK TO TOP
2015 Constitutionally Speaking | website created by Idea in a Forest