NGCOBO J [138] Section 172(2)(a) of the Constitution authorises a high court to “make an order concerning the constitutional validity of an Act of Parliament”. The Welfare Laws Amendment Act, which introduces section 4B(b)(ii) is “an Act of Parliament.” In terms of section 81 of the Constitution, “[a] Bill assented to and signed by the President becomes an Act of Parliament”. That it has not taken effect matters not. Accordingly, I agree with the main judgment that this Court has jurisdiction to determine the constitutional validity of section 4B(b)(ii). [139] Once it is accepted that this Court has jurisdiction to consider the constitutional validity of section 4B(b)(ii), it follows that this Court has the power not only to declare that provision unconstitutional, but also to grant “any order that is just and equitable” under section 172(1) of the Constitution. I agree with the main judgment that the appropriate remedy would be to read the words “permanent resident” into section 4B(b)(ii). The same goes for section 4(b)(ii). [140] In the result, I concur in the conclusion reached by Mokgoro J in relation to sections 4(b)(ii) and 4B(b)(ii) and in the order that she proposes in that regard. However, I am unable to concur in the result reached by Mokgoro J in relation to section 3(c) and in the order that she proposes in that regard. In my view, the order of invalidity in relation to section 3(c) should not be confirmed. I would make no order for costs. 83