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.
My comment on Robert McBride last week elicited quite harsh comment from some readers. I bemoaned the fact that McBride was not being held accountable as one would expect in a democracy but some readers took issue with this on the ground that we do not live in a democracy.
That, of course, was before the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) announced that McBride is to be charged with driving under the influence of alcohol, defeating the ends of justice and fraud. Nevertheless, the comments of the readers was perplexing because it seems rather obvious to me that we live in a relatively healthy democracy.
Really, the Economist (not a left wing or PC magazine by any strech of the imagination) placed South Africa 29th out of 165 countries on its democracy Index in 2007. (
There are perhaps three interrelated reasons why some people are so dissatisfied with what is happening in
Second, some people have a “look-at-Zimbabwe” attitude and see signs everywhere of the imminent demise of
Lastly, people are just plain uninformed, perhaps because they believe the things that bigots whine on about on talk radio. Thus a reader rails against the
Thing is, the wonder of a democracy is that we do not always (or ever!) have to agree with the government or with the judgments of the
Of course, democratic governments should adhere to some basic principles and we the people should make sure they do (because give even the most democratic government half a chance and they will cut corners). This is why I criticized McBride for failure to be held accountable.
But today I am very happy that the NPA has done the right thing and has affirmed the respect that everyone is equal before the law by charging McBride. I am eagerly looking forward to the cross examination because Mr. McBride looks like a guy who is going to make Schabir Shaik look believable and coherent under cross examination.
Such are the joys of living in a democracy under the Rule of Law.BACK TO TOP