So why then the absence of a third cheer? In the main, it is due to the manner in which the hearing proceeded.

In the first place, the Constitutional Court correctly dismissed the application brought by Jacob Zuma for the recusal of six justices of the court. Given that the case before the court turned on only two legal questions, both of which required an interpretation of section 47 of the Constitution, it was irrelevant that the selfsame court had, in June 2021, ordered Zuma to be imprisoned for contempt of court.

Manifestly, the judges of the highest court in the land can apply themselves to the interpretation of the Constitution in an impartial manner. That Zuma considered the court's decision to order his imprisonment to be unfair, if not illegal, could never meet the test for recusal, which the court had set out comprehensively in the President of South Africa v Sarfu, some 25 years earlier.

Second, the court exhibited great patience and stamina in sitting from 10am to 8pm -- an exhibition of overtime that is a fine example of judicial diligence.

So why then the absence of a third cheer?

In the main, it is due to the manner in which the hearing proceeded.

The court had increasingly moved toward the model of the US Supreme Court in limiting oral...