MOKGORO J [87] Once the Court has found constitutional inconsistency, it must declare invalidity to the extent of the inconsistency.86 The Court may then make an order which is “just and equitable”.87 In this case, the impugned provisions are inconsistent with the Constitution in that they exclude permanent residents from access to social security on the basis that they are non-citizens. The declaration of invalidity therefore does not affect the full extent of the impugned provisions. In such circumstances, the approach of this Court has been to declare only the relevant part of the impugned legislation inconsistent with the Constitution.88 [88] When courts consider a remedy following a declaration of invalidity of a statute, the question of remedial precision, which relates directly to respect for the role of the legislature, is an important consideration.89 As permanent residents are not included in the allocation of social grants in section 4(b)(ii) of the Act, remedying the defect with the necessary precision would require the 86 Section 172(1)(a) of the Constitution provides: “(1) When deciding a constitutional matter within its power, a court — (a) must declare that any law or conduct that is inconsistent with the Constitution is invalid to the extent of its inconsistency.” 87 Section 172(1)(b) reads: “(1)When deciding a constitutional matter within its power, a court — (b) may make any order that is just and equitable, including — (i) an order limiting the retrospective effect of the declaration of invalidity; and (ii) an order suspending the declaration of invalidity for any period and on any conditions, to allow the competent authority to correct the defect.” 88 National Coalition above n 12 at para 87. 89 Id 54