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)
5 February 2020

On delaying a trial: Porritt

The delay in this matter is totally unacceptable. This case strangely has the hallmarks of the Zuma Principle – to drag the case through even when there are manifestly no prospects. These particular tactics have since become common place in our courts. The delay of some 16 years cannot on any platform be justified. Approximately 17 judges have in one way or another dealt with this matter not on trial but on peripheral issues. The Applicant is using the old well-known tricks to cause a delay. The Applicant is now representing himself. He has dismissed the attorneys from the case and hopefully they will never reappear in this matter at any future convenient time.

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