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.
I was woken up this morning at 5:30 by the blaring of Vuvuzela’s. I got up and was going to write something for this Blog about the judgment of the High Court which found that the Mail & Guardian had the right to access all the information regarding tenders given out by the Local Organising Committee of the Soccer World Cup. A great day for the principle of freedom of information and openness and transparency and all that important stuff.
But I put on my Bafana Bafana shirt and practiced my Vuvuzela blowing instead.
Then I thought of writing about the Human Rights Commission Report criticising the City of Cape Town for not providing proper toilets to the poor and destitute of our City, but discovered Gavin Silber had already said what I wanted to say on the Writing Rights Blog.
Soon the fever will pass, sanity will return and with it my critical faculties. Meanwhile – sorry dear readers – no attempt at insightful and critical analysis of the legal and constitutional issues of the day seems possible. Once the World Cup gets started I promise to return.BACK TO TOP