1. As usual, with all legal matters #Zuma there are flaws in legal arguments all round. Am not sure whether this I'd done deliberately or mischievously.
2. The Con Court, like all courts, was under an obligation to take into consideration international law.
3. The problem, I maintain and insist, was not in the Court's refusal to permit #Zuma to await the outcome of the rescission application whilst out on bail or warning etc. That was simply symptomatic of the underlying constitutional repugnance.
4. I am adamant that #Zuma had his fair trial rights violated and that is because of this confusion between civil and criminal contempt and the applicability of s12 vis-a-vis the applicability of s35 together with s12 & all other prefatory elements.
5. If you argue that this was civil contempt pure, you have to overcome the Constitutional hurdle of jailing someone for an act which is not a crime and have regard to the Con Court decision on 'vonnis skuldenaars' and don't get excitable it finds relevance.
6. If, however, you argue that this is civil contempt which carries penalties at criminal law, problematic as that is, it becomes inescapable that s35 protections follow as a matter of course and of law. #Zuma
7. Therefore, because it is common cause that #Zuma was invited to mitigate a priori, without being afforded criminal law protections then it follows as a matter of course that his rights were violated.
7. If criminal law principles were applicable then the Court which refused to release Zuma pending the rescission application exercised a discretion and this would mean that the convicting court was the only court vested with the requisite jurisdiction to release him.
8. In Sanderson, the CC's decision is very clear on matters which are integrally intertwined with or related to criminal matters. In criminal, unlike civil matters, the decision is not automatically suspended with a noting an application for leave to appeal. Bail must be granted
9. In conclusion, international law is applicable and MUST be taken into account. Zuma's s35 rights were violated. Because of the error(s) in law, the decision falls to be rescinded. The ICCPR argument iro of his jailing, however, is irrelevant & is neither here nor there!
11. The CC itself has reiterated their its reluctance to being a court of first instance. This egg can't be unscrambled. Focus on the rescission then petition the UN to challenge the judicial arm of SA as a State Party & the violation of the RELEVANT instruments. #Zuma
12. In closing - bear in mind that the UN is not an appeal court or tribunal. In the interim, you ought to have approached the HCC, the AC, the RC, the NC and the Minister ito the CSA for his placement on parole even before 1/4. #Zuma I rest.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
