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.
(1) No person may-
(a) compel or unlawfully persuade any person-
(i) to register or not to register as a voter;
(ii) to vote or not to vote;
(iii) to vote or not to vote for any party or candidate;
(iv) to support or not to support any party or candidate; or
(v) to attend and participate in, or not to attend and participate in, any political meeting, march, demonstration or other political event;