SKWEYIYA ADCJ [29] In anticipation of the hearing, this Court issued directions to the parties to address in written submissions the application of the High Court‘s judgment to both adults and children. The applicant had no objection to this Court considering the provision‘s application to adults. He acknowledged that different considerations may apply to adults as opposed to children. Nevertheless, adults and children are on the same footing insofar as the Sexual Offences Act prohibits an overly broad array of sexual conduct and insofar as the provision infringes on the offender‘s section 34 right to a fair hearing. The state respondents and the amici argued that the Court should limit its consideration to child offenders. [30] While courts are empowered to raise constitutional issues of their own accord, this power is not boundless. In order for the interests of justice to favour a court considering a constitutional issue of its own accord, it is important that the issue arises on the facts because it is generally undesirable to deal with an issue in abstract.31 Other issues to consider are whether declining to determine the issue would create undesirable uncertainty or leave an issue that was declared unconstitutional in limbo, and whether the constitutional validity of an issue is moot.32 [31] The facts before the High Court raised the application of the provision to child offenders. Different considerations apply to child and adult offenders. These considerations have not been ventilated properly on the facts or in legal argument in 31 Director of Public Prosecutions, Transvaal v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Others [2009] ZACC 8; 2009 (4) SA 222 (CC); 2009 (7) BCLR 637 (CC) (DPP) at para 43. 32 Sibiya and Others v Director of Public Prosecutions, Johannesburg and Others [2005] ZACC 6; 2005 (5) SA 315 (CC); 2005 (8) BCLR 812 (CC) at para 44. 17