infringes upon his rights, it is not for this Court to rule lightly on other matters not squarely relevant to the confirmation proceedings even if canvassed fully on the papers.
[23]Consequently, I emphasise that this matter is not concerned with the appropriate age of consent to sexual intercourse, though much reference was made in argument in that regard by the parties. The impugned provisions relate to the age of consent to acts of a sexual nature which by their nature or circumstances are termed “immoral or indecent acts” and explicitly set different ages of consent to these acts for people of the opposite sex and people of the same sex.
[24]What therefore needs to be answered is whether there is any justification for a law permitting same-sex sexual acts only at the age of 19 years, whereas opposite-sex sexual acts may occur at an earlier age of 16 years.
Impugned legislation
[25]The specific provisions of the Act that are challenged are section 14(1)(b) and 14(3)(b) which provide:
“Sexual offences with youths—
