• All Share : 51479.8
    DOWN -1.00%
    Top40 - (Tradeable) : 44963.91
    DOWN -1.05%
    Financial 15 : 14699.96
    DOWN -1.24%
    Industrial 25 : 68014.58
    DOWN -0.95%
    Resource 10 : 31374.06
    DOWN -1.17%

  • ZAR/USD : 13.5798
    DOWN -0.85%
    ZAR/GBP : 17.5802
    DOWN -1.00%
    ZAR/EUR : 15.2661
    DOWN -1.04%
    ZAR/JPY : 0.1342
    DOWN -1.47%
    ZAR/AUD : 10.4058
    DOWN -0.52%

  • Gold US$/oz : 1335.2
    DOWN -0.20%
    Platinum US$/oz : 1041
    UP 0.19%
    Silver US$/oz : 19.45
    UP 0.15%
    Palladium US$/oz : 697
    UP 0.72%
    Brent Crude : 47.24
    UP 0.68%

  • All data is delayed by 15 min. Data supplied by Profile Data
    Hover cursor over this ticker to pause.

Tue Sep 27 07:21:38 SAST 2016

Court to settle al-Bashir wrangle

Ernest Mabuza | 18 January, 2016 00:17
The court held that the government's decision not to detain Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir was inconsistent with the constitution. File photo
Image by: MOHAMED NURELDIN ABDALLAH / REUTERS

South Africa has a duty under international law to respect the immunity of the serving head of a foreign state.

Under South African law, it would be a crime to violate this immunity.

This is one of the arguments presented to the Supreme Court of Appeal by the government last week in its appeal against an order of the Pretoria High Court in June.

The court held that the government's decision not to detain Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir was inconsistent with the constitution.

Al-Bashir came to this country for the African Union summit in June, despite a warrant for his arrest having been issued by the International Criminal Court, which wants to try him for war crimes.

South Africa, as a signatory to the Rome Statute, was bound to execute the warrant.

The Southern Africa Litigation Centre sought the execution of the ICC warrant.

A court order instructing the state to ensure that al-Bashir was prevented from leaving this country was ignored.

The Supreme Court of Appeal will hear the matter on February 12. The government petitioned it following the High Court's refused to grant it leave to appeal.

The court must rule on whether the serving head of a foreign state enjoys immunity against arrest in South Africa, irrespective of a warrant for his arrest issued by the ICC.

In its heads of argument for the Supreme Court of Appeal, the government said immunity was a fundamental principle of international law and there had been no development of customary international law that abolished the immunity of a serving head of state.

SHARE YOUR OPINION

If you have an opinion you would like to share on this article, please send us an e-mail to the Times LIVE iLIVE team. In the mean time, click here to view the Times LIVE iLIVE section.