MOKGORO J neither of these was done, the respondents contended that the High Court decision infringed the doctrine of separation of powers and therefore ought not to be confirmed by this Court. They further argued that even if the decision did not infringe the separation of powers, this Court should not confirm the order of the High Court as the relevant statistical and financial information had not been before it at the time of hearing the application. [18] The respondents had the opportunity to place evidence before the High Court and cannot be heard to say that it was the duty of the High Court to call for evidence before declaring the impugned legislation unconstitutional. It was the respondents who were to be blamed for the failure to place relevant information and argument before the High Court which explained the reasons for the disputed provisions and the purpose they were intended to serve. [19] Any challenge to legislation, whether national, provincial or local, is important. National legislation does not belong to a particular Minister or Department. It is the collective expressed will of Parliament. Declaring legislation invalid can have grave implications for our constitutional jurisprudence and, in some cases, far-reaching practical effects.11 Even in those cases where the view is taken that there is nothing to be said in support of challenged legislation, a court, in order to exercise the due care required of it 11 Id 13