MOKGORO J on the matter and do not have the benefit of a judgment of the High Court. In the circumstances, it is undesirable to express any opinion on the issue unless it is necessary to do so for the purposes of the decision in this case. In my view it is not necessary to decide the issue. Even if it is assumed that a different threshold of reasonableness is called for in sections 26 and 27 than is the case in section 36, I am satisfied for the reasons already given that the exclusion of permanent residents from the scheme for social assistance is neither reasonable nor justifiable within the meaning of section 36. [85] The Constitution vests the right to social security in “everyone”. By excluding permanent residents from the scheme for social security, the legislation limits their rights in a manner that affects their dignity and equality in material respects. Dignity and equality are founding values of the Constitution and lie at the heart of the Bill of Rights. Sufficient reason for such invasive treatment of the rights of permanent residents has not been established. The exclusion of permanent residents is therefore inconsistent with section 27 of the Constitution. Remedy Bill of Rights Handbook 4 ed (Juta, 2001) 451; Liebenberg “Socio-economic Rights” in Chaskalson et al (eds) Constitutional Law of South Africa (Juta, 1999) 41-7 to 41-8; De Vos “Pious Wishes or Directly Enforceable Human Rights? Social and Economic Rights in South Africa’s 1996 Constitution” (1997) 13 SAJHR 67 at 79-80; Pieterse “Towards a Useful Role for Section 36 of the Constitution in Social Rights Cases? Residents of Bon Vista Mansions v Southern Metropolitan Local Council” (2003) 120 SALJ 41. 52