MOKGORO J when dealing with such matters, may well require the assistance of counsel.12 In this case it should have been apparent to the respondents that the declaration of invalidity of the impugned legislation could have significant budgetary and administrative implications for the state. If the necessary evidence is not placed before the courts dealing with such matters their ability to perform their constitutional mandate will be hampered and the constitutional scheme itself put at risk.13 It is government’s duty to ensure that the relevant evidence is placed before the court. [20] Counsel for the respondents also submitted that it was necessary for the Minister of Finance, who wished to intervene in the proceedings, to be joined in this matter as he had a “direct and substantial interest” and might be prejudiced by the order of the High Court. The non-joinder of the Minister of Finance, the respondents argued, was material and had the effect of vitiating the proceedings and the order of the High Court. [21] As an alternative to the dismissal of the application for confirmation, the respondents submitted that the matter be referred back to the High Court for the 12 Minister of Justice v Ntuli 1997 (3) SA 772 (CC); 1997 (6) BCLR 677 (CC) at para 41; S v Ntsele 1997 (2) SACR 740 (CC); 1997 (11) BCLR 1543 (CC) at para 13; Parbhoo and Others v Getz NO and Another 1997 (4) SA 1095 (CC); 1997 (10) BCLR 1337 (CC) at para 5; S v Mello and Another 1998 (3) SA 712 (CC); 1998 (7) BCLR 908 (CC) at para 11; National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality and Others v Minister of Home Affairs and Others 2000 (2) SA 1 (CC); 2000 (1) BCLR 39 at para 7; Dawood above n 9 at para 17. 13 Id Dawood. 14