MOKGORO J it will impact on the lives of many people who are in a position similar to that of the applicants. Having reached this conclusion, the just and equitable order for this Court to make would be to read the words “or permanent resident” into the section so as to make the grants available to permanent residents. [93] One further matter needs to be addressed and that is whether this Court’s order reading words into section 3(c) of the Act can be formulated in a way that will survive the bringing into force of section 3 of the Welfare Laws Amendment Act? Although the amendment made by the Welfare Laws Amendment Act takes the form of substituting a new section 3(c) for the existing section 3(c), the wording of the existing section is retained apart form the old usage of referring only to the male gender in statutes. Both genders are referred to in the new section. Save for that, the language of the new section is identical to the language of the existing section. [94] If this Court’s order is formulated in a way that addresses only the wording of the existing section 3(c) it would mean that if section 3 of the Welfare Laws Amendment Act is brought into force in its present form, the order made by this Court in respect of social grants would be frustrated. The President would face the dilemma of either bringing into force a provision known to be unconstitutional, or refraining from bringing section 3 of the Welfare Laws Amendment Act into force, although that is what the statute 96 Walters above n 30 at para 73. 58