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)
11 March 2020

Con Court on the Public Protector

The Public Protector’s explanation of the meeting of 7 June 2017 with the Presidency was, and still is, woefully inadequate. … In this Court, the Public Protector has contended that the adverse findings made against her by the High Court were based on innocent errors on her part.  The Public Protector’s persistent contradictions, however, cannot simply be explained away on the basis of innocent mistakes.  This is not a credible explanation.  The Public Protector has not been candid about the meetings she had with the Presidency and the State Security Agency before she finalised the report.  The Public Protector’s conduct in the High Court warranted a de bonis propriis (personal) costs order against her because she acted in bad faith and in a grossly unreasonable manner.

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