as that to which it may be subjected, that will be the answer our country gives to the problem.
[141]I am accordingly satisfied that the appropriate way forward is for this Court to make an order within its powers to grant the appellants relief but to suspend such order for two years to enable Parliament to deal with the matter.
[142]Counsel for the appellants argued that such suspension would not be either competent or appropriate. I do not agree.
[143]As far as this Court's powers are concerned, the matter, being a constitutional one, is governed by s 172(1)(b) of the Constitution, which, it will be recalled, empowers the Court to
‘make any order that is just and equitable, including―
(i) an order limiting the retrospective effect of the declaration of invalidity; and (ii) an order suspending the declaration of invalidity for any period and on any conditions, to allow the competent authority to correct the defect.’
Even if one assumes that a decision to develop the common law—because without the development it is not in accord with the spirit, purport and objects of the Bill of Rights—does not amount to a declaration of invalidity (a matter on which it is not necessary for me to express an opinion), it is clear that the Court's powers to grant ‘any order that is just and equitable’ must include the power
