MOKGORO J legislation. The State Attorney requested, however, that the Minister be allowed until 23 May 2003, a date falling ten days after the date set down for hearing, to make representations to this Court. [14] Responding on the same day to the State Attorney, the Chief Justice wrote: “The direction to which you refer was given in terms of section 3(2) of the Constitutional Court Complementary Act which requires the Minister to appoint counsel to submit argument to the Court if requested to do so by the Chief Justice. Once the request was made the Minister was obliged to instruct counsel. If the counsel concerned required instructions or information from the Department of Social Development, as seems to be essential in the present case, the necessary arrangements should have been made timeously. It appears from your letter that the delay is the result of the failure to give effect to the Chief Justice’s directions. The case has been set down for hearing on 13 May and an extension to 23 May is not possible. The delay is unfortunate but the issues raised in the case are important and the Court requires the assistance of counsel for the State. Counsel must do the best they can in the circumstances and lodge their submissions as soon as possible and at the latest by 4.00 pm on the 9th May.” [15] The Director-General of the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development then informed the Registrar that the respondents wished to oppose the matter. There was therefore no longer a need to brief counsel on behalf of the Minister. [16] When the matter came before this Court on 13 May 2003 the respondents were represented by counsel. They contended that the proceedings 11