Page:NCGLE v Minister of Justice.djvu/3

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
Ackermann J


committed by a man or between men which, if committed by a woman or between women or between a man and a woman, would not constitute an offence.
3. It is declared that section 20A of the Sexual Offences Act, 1957 is inconsistent with the Constitution and invalid.
4. It is declared that the inclusion of sodomy as an item in Schedule 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1977 is inconsistent with the Constitution and invalid.
5. It is declared that the inclusion of sodomy as an item in the Schedule to the Security Officers Act, 1987 is inconsistent with the Constitution and invalid.
6. The aforementioned orders, in so far as they declare provisions of Acts of Parliament invalid, are referred to the Constitutional Court for confirmation in terms of section 172(2)(a) of Act 108 of 1996.”

The learned judge correctly did not refer orders (1) and (2) to this Court for confirmation because section 172(2)(a)[1] of the 1996 Constitution neither requires confirmation by the Constitutional Court of orders of constitutional invalidity of common law offences nor


  1. Which provides as follows:

    “The Supreme Court of Appeal, a High Court or a court of similar status may make an order concerning the constitutional validity of an Act of Parliament, a provincial Act or any conduct of the President, but an order of constitutional invalidity has no force unless it is confirmed by the Constitutional Court.”

3