MOKGORO J [86] For the reasons given above, we do not confirm the order of the High Court and we find section 3(c), prior to amendment by the Welfare Laws Amendment Act, to be unconstitutional. It was the submission of the respondents that we find sections 4(b)(ii) and 4B(b)(ii) of the Act, as amended by the Welfare Laws Amendment Act, unconstitutional and that we strike them both down, coupled with an order suspending invalidity. Section 4B(b)(ii) as it appears in section 3 of the Welfare Laws Amendment Act is not yet in force. Although this new section will become part of the Act when it is promulgated, it has been passed as part of the Welfare Laws Amendment Act. Thus, the High Court’s determination of the impugned section as a provision of the Social Assistance Act was technically not in order. Since the impugned section was before the High Court it is necessary for it to be considered in these confirmation proceedings. However, in view of the fact that the new provision is currently contained in the Welfare Laws Amendment Act, making, in the strict sense, that Act the subject of constitutional challenge, the order regarding this issue should be directed at the Welfare Laws Amendment Act and not the Social Assistance Act. For the same reasons as in the case of section 3(c), we do not confirm the order of the High Court and also find section 4(b)(ii) to be unconstitutional. The constitutionality of section 4B(b)(ii), as it appears in section 3 of the Welfare Laws Amendment Act is discussed below. 53