Ackermann J
section 8(1) test was satisfied.[1]
[64]In my opinion Mr Davis’s remaining contentions cannot be sustained for the following reasons:
| (a) | This Court has given effect to substantive equality in its interpretation of section 8 of the interim Constitution; | |
| (b) | That analysis is no less applicable to section 9 of the 1996 Constitution and the additional words “and benefit” in section 9(1) take the matter no further; | |
| (c) | There is accordingly no need to fashion a new interpretation of section 9(1) of the 1996 Constitution. Indeed, in this judgment I have engaged in a substantive analysis in support of the conclusion for which both Mr Marcus and Mr Davis contend. |
Consensual and Non-Consensual Sodomy
- ↑ Above n 17 at paras 27 and 30–33.
61
