ZONDI AJ [71] The question therefore is whether the declaration of invalidity should be suspended. invalidity.55 The Constitution expressly permits courts to suspend an order of When a court does so, the effect of the order is to permit the unconstitutional provision to continue to operate pending the end of the suspension period. In other words, the impugned provision continues to operate for a limited period. The applicants‘ opposition to the suspension of the declaration of invalidity is anchored on three pillars. The first is based on a need to obtain effective relief which the applicants contend would not be achieved if the declaration of invalidity were to be suspended. The second pillar is that there is no evidence that the declaration of invalidity without suspension would disrupt the administration of justice. [72] This Court in Gaertner held that in deciding whether to suspend a declaration of invalidity a court must consider the interests of a successful litigant in obtaining immediate constitutional relief and the potential disruption of the administration of justice that would be caused by the lacuna.56 Absence of disruption to administration of justice is, however, not decisive. In Dawood this Court held that where a range of possibilities exist, and a court is able to offer appropriate interim relief to affected persons, it will ordinarily be appropriate to leave the Legislature to determine in the first instance how the unconstitutionality should be cured.57 This Court emphasised that it should be slow to make choices which are primarily choices suitable for the Legislature.58 This principle was affirmed in Teddy Bear Clinic.59 This is particularly true for this case where there are numerous sexual offences which are subject to a 20-year prescription period. 55 Section 172(1)(b)(ii) of the Constitution above n 52. 56 Gaertner above n 23 at para 77. 57 Dawood v Minister of Home Affairs; Shalabi v Minister of Home Affairs; Thomas v Minister of Home Affairs [2000] ZACC 8; 2000 (3) SA 936 (CC); 2000 (8) BCLR 837 (CC) at para 64. 58 Id. 59 Teddy Bear Clinic for Abused Children v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development [2013] ZACC 35; 2014 (2) SA 168 (CC); 2013 (12) BCLR 1429 (CC) (Teddy Bear Clinic) at para 106. 30