Court seeks more input on Zuma rescission bid

The Constitutional Court has asked the parties involved in former President Jacob Zuma's rescission application against its judgment jailing him for contempt of court to make submissions on whether it is obliged to consider a UN covenant on civil and political rights. News24 notes the thrust of Zuma's main argument was that his rights were violated because he was convicted and sentenced without trial for refusing to appear before the Zondo Commission, despite an order to do so by the Constitutional Court. Another issue was the fact that Zuma was jailed for civil contempt of court. The Constitutional Court, which reserved judgment in the rescission application, has now directed the parties to file submissions on a UN covenant, not relied upon by any party during application arguments. The apex court has asked for submissions on whether it is obliged to consider the UN's International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights when construing sections 12(1)b and 35(3) of the Constitution. This, in light of section 39(1) of the Constitution, which directs courts to consider international law. Section 12(1)b speaks about the right to freedom and security of the person, which includes the right not to be detained without trial, while 35(3) details that every accused person has the right to a fair trial. The Constitutional Court also asked that, if the covenant should be considered, what implications would it have on Zuma's current detention? The UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights covers the rights to due process and fair trial, among other civil and political rights. The court asked that submissions by Zuma and Democracy in Action be filed before 13 August, while the commission headed by Acting Chief Justice Raymond Zondo, the Helen Suzman Foundation and the Council for the Advancement of the South African Constitution should file their submissions before 18 August.

The UN covenant commits its parties to respect the civil and political rights of individuals, including the right to life, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, electoral rights and rights to due process and a fair trial, notes a TimesLIVE report. A Sunday Times report says the court’s request suggests that at least some of its members are giving deeper consideration to Zuma’s argument that he was wrongly jailed. The Constitution stipulates that, when interpreting the Bill of Rights, courts ‘must consider international law’. In its directions the Constitutional Court refers to articles 9 and 14(5) of the UN covenant and decisions of the Human Rghts Committee, the body that monitors implementation of the covenant. Article 9 sets out a number of rights of accused and arrested persons and article 14(5) says ‘everyone convicted of a crime shall have the right to his conviction and sentence being reviewed by a higher tribunal according to law’. The fact that Zuma was convicted by the highest court, from which there can be no appeal, was one of the arguments he made for a breach of his rights.