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)
5 May 2008

Mayor Pinocchio?

Maybe we are beginning to see why Helen Zille is so adamant to stop the Erasmus Commission from doing its job. Newspapers this weekend reported on allegations made by Premier Ebrahim Rasool in papers before the High Court in the application to have the Erasmus Commission of Enquiry declared illegal and/or unconstitutional and they make veryy interesting reading indeed.

No wonder Helen Zille has seemingly lost the plot and continues to argue (falsely) that the Constitutional Court has said that judges should not get involved with commission’s of enquiry if there is any chance that it would be politically controversial.

This is false because in South African Association of Personal Injury Lawyers v Heath the Constitutional Court said that given the principle of the separation of powers in our Constitution, a judge should not perform a task that is “incompatible with judicial office” and that one of the factors that might be relevant in deciding whether the task is incompatible with judicial office would be whether it would “create the risk of judicial entanglement in matters of political controversy”.

But the Court also said that judges can preside over commissions on inquiry because the performance of such a function “ordinarily calls for the qualities and skills required for the performance of judicial functions – independence, weighing-up of information, and giving a decision on the basis of a consideration of relevant information”.

Maybe Ms Zille has something to hide after all? From the Cape Times comes this report:

Premier Ebrahim Rasool alleges that Mayor Helen Zille may have had a bigger role than she has asserted in the city’s dealings with the private investigators hired to probe councillor Badih Chaaban.

This is among charges levelled by Rasool in an affidavit he submitted to the High Court on Wednesday, in response to the city’s application last month to have the Erasmus Commission declared invalid.

Rasool alleged Zille had “regular Monday morning meetings” with operatives of the investigating firm, George Fivaz and Associates.

The meetings had also been attended by DA members who are not city council office-bearers. He charged that her telephone records pointed to “personal contacts” with the investigations firm.

This morning Zille dismissed Rasool’s allegations as “lies” that were “very easy to refute”.

Interesting stuff. I am looking forward to hear Ms Zille’s side of the story (apart from a blanket denial which does not really enlighten us) and to hear how she will refute these claims. If they are easy to refute, I am sure she will let us have all the evidence to refute these claims in the next day or two.

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