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.
On the face of it this does not seem like a significant victory for the NPA in building a solid case against Mr Zuma because they already have a copy of the diary in dispute which was accepted as evidence in the Shaik trial. But maybe there are other documents among the one’s requested that we have not been told of and that will help the state.
In any case, it seems clear that Mr Zuma will be recharged by the NPA later this year and that he will therefore be a defendant in a criminal trial at the time of the ANC conference in Polokwane in December.