Why doesn't Zuma appeal to the SADC Tribunal? Ah yes, because he helped destroy it →

On Monday, the Constitutional Court heard argument in Jacob Zuma's desperate final effort to overturn the 15-month prison sentence he is now serving.

Unusually, he is asking the Court to "rescind" its own order from two weeks ago, claiming that it was made erroneously and in violation of his fundamental rights. The Court had convicted him of contempt of court for defying its earlier order that he must appear and answer questions at the Zondo Commission of inquiry into state capture.

Unlike an appeal, where a lower court's order can be reversed because it was wrongly decided on the facts or the law - a rescission application can only succeed in a narrow set of irregular circumstances.

In Zuma's case, he needs to show that the order was "erroneously sought or granted in his absence". Obviously, Zuma will fail to do this, as he was a fully informed party to the contempt proceedings against him, but voluntarily refused to participate.

The reason Zuma is bringing a hopeless rescission application, instead of an appeal, is because the Constitutional Court is the country's highest court of appeal.

In South Africa, it is the end of the judicial road.

But this was not always the case.