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)
25 June 2007

Kebble got value for donation says ANC

How brazen can you get? Now the ANC is arguing in court papers that it does not have to pay back the 3.5 million Rand that Brett Kebble donated to it. Kebble’s estate is trying to get back the money which they claimed were paid when he was insolvent. Business Day reports:

In his affidavit, Msimang said “donors receive value for the funds donated” through the “indirect benefit” that their companies operated in a political climate “which was borne through the gallant effort and contribution of the ANC”.

Msimang said that by donating to the ANC, Kebble was “maintaining an institution of democracy which (enabled) him to acquire his wealth, which in (turn), enabled him to operate his business in a democratic state free of racism, economic sanctions and free of all the negativity brought by (apartheid)”.

This argument is so preposterous, it could have been made up by The Onion. It is as if the ANC people are mocking themselves. It also seems to reflect – more darkly – the view that only the ANC can run South Africa and keep the peace and thus, by implication, that onmly the ANC has a right to rule the country.

I cannot imagine that the court would agree with this argument and then the ANC will have to pay back the money in any case. Why make such a fool of yourself if you know the chances of winning is very slim? The most obvious answer is that one makes such answers if one is exctremely arrogant and does not really care what people think. Or maybe more correctly, one does not care what the chattering classes think who actually read newspapers.

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