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)
27 November 2006

Same-sex marriage passes last hurdle

The NCOP committee voted today for an unamended version of the Civil Union Bill despite vociferous objections from religious groups. This just goes to show that the “compromise” of creating two marriage acts did not appease religious groups.

Why then compromise? Why not amend the Marriage Act and get it over with?

I suspect it has more to do with the politics within the ANC than with any attempt to appease religious groups. A separate act may have made it more palatable for ANC MPs to vote for the Bill. It gives them something to defend back home.

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