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)
30 June 2021

Jacob Zuma’s contempt of court

It is unbecoming and irresponsible of a person in Mr Zuma’s position to wilfully undermine the law in this way.  Mr Zuma had every right and opportunity to defend his rights, but he chose, time and time again, to publicly reject and vilify the Judiciary entirely.  I have already detailed the lengths to which this Court has gone in this matter to safeguard Mr Zuma’s rights despite his insolence towards this Court.  Consequently, there is no sound or logical basis on which Mr Zuma can claim to have been treated unfairly or victimised by this Court.  His attempts to evoke public sympathy through such allegations fly in the face of reason.  They are an insult to the constitutional dispensation for which so many women and men fought and lost their lives.

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