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)
28 August 2017

On eskom lies

Eskom has admitted it lied when it defended making payments totalling R1.6bn to Gupta linked financial advisory firm Trillian and global consultancy McKinsey. In June Eskom strongly defended the payments in response to questions posed by Business Day following the release of a damning report into Trillian by advocate Geoff Budlender. At the time Eskom said another global management consultancy, Oliver Wyman, had conducted an external review and concluded that “all payments” were “based on prudent costs incurred and value created”. But on Monday Eskom made an about-turn and conceded this information was false.

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