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)
17 March 2007

With friends like these….

In response to my post on Ranjeni Munusamy and Mr Jacob Zuma, a reader of this Blog writes:

That’s bull shit!!!! You are only looking at your own angle, what do you thing of what you read on Business Day???? You are one of those people who hate JZ without a reason but full of yourself. Get lost man…

Which just goes to show, in an ethically free zone facts do not matter. But the Zuma supporters like the one quoted above would do well to have a peek at the SCA judgment in the Shaik trial. It really does make for interesting reading when your hero is Jacob Zuma. A bit like reading about the Widows and Orphans Trust when you thought R Arthur W Brown or whatever his name is, was a champion of the poor.
SHARE:     
BACK TO TOP
2015 Constitutionally Speaking | website created by Idea in a Forest