MOKGORO J words offers the most appropriate remedy in this matter, I can see no reason why this Court should be precluded from also reading in the appropriate words into section 4B(b)(ii). Section 172(1), which empowers courts to declare laws to be inconsistent with the Constitution, does not distinguish between laws which have been brought into force and those which have not. Once a matter is properly before this Court, there should be no bar to the just and equitable remedies that can be granted, so long as this Court is ever mindful of its role in relation to Parliament. In the case of a provision that has yet to be brought into force the legislative process is complete and we have a duly enacted Act of Parliament before us. In the consideration of a precise remedy, aimed at respecting the role of the legislature, there seems to be no material difference between this Court’s power to read words into such a provision, and its power in respect of provisions that have been brought into force. [92] This Court has held that any order relating to the constitutionality of law or conduct must have a practical effect.93 In the present matter, unlike in the cases of a challenge to repealed legislation94 or where there is no longer a live controversy between the parties,95 an order in respect of section 4B(b)(ii) will have a practical effect, although the effect will be delayed. Parliament has approved the provision, the President must bring it into force96 and at that point 93 President, Ordinary Court Martial above n 17 at paras 16-8; Independent Electoral Commission v Langeberg Municipality above n 36 at para 11. 94 See President, Ordinary Court Martial above n 17. 95 See Independent Electoral Commission v Langeberg Municipality above n 36. 57