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)
8 November 2006

Youth League strikes again

The ANC Youth League and the Young Communist League held a press conference today. Business Day reports as follows on this:

Jacob Zuma has emerged unscathed from the Supreme Court of Appeal’s dismissal of Schabir Shaik’s appeal against his corruption convictions, the African National Congress (ANC) Youth League said today.

“The Supreme Court of Appeal passed the unequivocal message that the person found guilty was Mr Shaik and not [ANC deputy president] Zuma,” league president Fikile Mbalula told a news conference in Johannesburg.

I think for once I agree with the Youth League. The Court was extremely careful to focus on the guilt of Shaik and to make clear that they are finding that Shaik had the intention to commit corruption and bribery. But then the Youth League continues as follows:

Mbalula said judge Craig Howie’s ruling on Monday did nothing to enhance or diminish the possibility of the National Prosecuting Authority recharging Zuma for corruption.

“Any re-charging of Zuma would constitute a witchhunt, a fishing expedition that would effectively perpetuate the NPA’s continued leap from one disaster to another.”

Here Mr Mbablula’s wishful thinking overshadow his common sense. Any cursory reading of the judgment shows that the judgment found beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Zuma received more than a million Rand an from Shaik to subsidise an extravagant lifestyle, and then used his power and prestige as ANC Deputy President and then as Deputy President of the country to assist his friend in his business dealings. It also found the encrypted fax was rightly admitted.

The jugdment clearly bolsters the state’s case, but more importantly, it diminishes Zuma’s political standing because it makes clear there was (and still is) a case for him to answer and that the charges brought against him was thus not a witchhunt (and obviously not a fishing expedition because that is just logically impossible).

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