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)
21 September 2008

The President speaks….

President Thabo Mbeki’s speech to the nation tonight was both dignified and Presidential. But as is often the case with his Presidential speeches he did not really say anything new or earth shattering.

However, in an oblique way the speech seemed to reply to his critics and offer a defense of his tenure as President. For me it was telling that the President said that “all our citizens must respect the Rule of Law and Human Rights”. The President also spoke about the need for moral regeneration and the need to respect the value system of ubuntu which means “we must all act in the manner that respect the dignity of every human being”.

This seems like a very vague kind of criticism of Jacob Zuma and some of his supporters and perhaps it expresses – indirectly at least – a view that President Mbeki was not treated fairly by the ANC. It is of course ironic that this was exactly the complaint lodged by Jacob Zuma and his supporters after he was fired by Mbeki and charged by the NPA.

This kind of argument seems to me misplaced and not in line with the principles of openness and accountability. As the Constitutional Court has said before, when a person is accused of wrongdoing his or her dignity will inevitably be affected. No one has a right not to be accused so to argue that everyone must always be treated with dignity can be viewed as a plea for impunity.

When he spoke about the Nicholson judgment it is striking that he prefaced his remarks with the statement that his government has always respected and defended the independence of the judiciary.- even when the executive had strong views about cases.

He also denied that he or the executive had ever interfered with or compromised the rights of the NPA to decide who to prosecute or not to prosecute and categorically stated that this also applied to the “painful matter” of the prosecution of Jacob Zuma. I wonder what the Zuma people will say about that.

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