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.
Here are the papers submitted to the Constitutional Court in the two cases relating to the implementation of the Public Protector’s Nkandla Report.
DA case – Public Protector’s papers: DA 4th Resp Heads
DA case – Minister of Police’s Papers: DA 3rd Resp Heads
DA case – President Zuma’s papers: DA 2nd Resp Heads
DA case – Speaker’s papers: DA 1st Resp Heads
DA case – DA’s papers:DA App Heads
EFF case – Public Protector’s papers: EFF 3rd Resp Heads
EFF case – President Zuma’s papers: EFF 2nd Resp Heads
EFF case – Speaker’s papers: EFF 1st Resp Heads
EFF case – EFF’s papersEFF App HeadsBACK TO TOP