Page:NCGLE v Minister of Home Affairs.djvu/80

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
Ackermann J

[83]The only bar to such an order in this case would be if it were not possible to define with sufficient precision how section 25(5) ought to be extended in order to comply with the Constitution. What constitutes sufficient precision must depend on the facts and the demands of each case. In deciding what sufficient precision is, one must not lose sight of the fact that the reading in is not a final act. It is important to point out in this context that if the remedy decided upon by a court were the striking down of section 25(5), coupled with a suspension order, the question of interim relief to protect the successful applicants would present the same problems concerning the precise formulation of such an interim order as does the remedy of reading in. It was for this reason that the Court in Miron[1] declined to make a suspended striking down order coupled with a constitutional exemption as a form of relief.[2]

  1. Above n 65.
  2. Id at para 179.