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)
7 February 2007

JSC to revisit Hlophe matter?

The Cape Argus reports today that the JSC will re-open the matter of Judge President John Hlophe and the almost R500 000 he received from Oasis for “out of pocket expenses”.

Does this mean that there are discrepancies between the version provided to the JSC by Judge Hlophe (and accepted by a majority of its members) and the information that came out in court papers? Surely Justice Hlophe would not have been unwise enough to make claims to the JSC that can be contradicted by hard evidence?

My innitial response to this sorry saga has not changed.

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