SKWEYIYA J enough.34 The impact of our judgments lies not in the sharpness of our critical dicta, but in the orders we issue or decline to issue, and in the arguments we consider or decline to consider. [244] Ngcobo J criticises the High Court’s inappropriate diversion into the constitutionality of irrelevant CPA provisions.35 This is unlikely to act as a corrective. This Court, in my view, sends an inconsistent message by condemning the raising of irrelevant constitutional issues while nevertheless proceeding to evaluate the merits of the constitutional issues as though they were relevant and properly raised. Conclusion [245] In my view, the interests of justice are better served by not confirming the declarations of constitutional invalidity of the improperly raised provisions on the basis that they were not relevant to the proceedings before the court below. [246] However, the amici’s submissions have brought to our attention serious problems in the implementation of the protective measures of the CPA. These are distinct concerns which can be addressed without an evaluation of the improperly raised provisions. In consideration of our role as the upper guardian of children and for the reasons advanced by Ngcobo J, I agree that it is proper to call for reports 34 Id. There, this Court said: “Last term alone, in eight out of ten matters, litigants did not comply with the time limits or the directions setting out the time limits. In some cases litigants either did not apply for condonation at all or if they did, they put up flimsy explanations. This non-compliance with the time limits or the Rules of Court resulted in one matter being postponed and the other being struck from the roll. This is undesirable. This practice must be stopped in its tracks.” 35 At [44] - [49] and [55] above. 122