NGCOBO J “Section 39(2) of the Constitution contains an injunction on the interpretation of legislation. It requires courts when interpreting any legislation to ‘promote the spirit, purport and objects of the Bill of Rights.’ Consistent with this interpretive injunction, where possible, legislation must be read in a manner that gives effect to the values of our constitutional democracy. These values include human dignity, equality and freedom. Thus where legislation is capable of more than one plausible construction, the one which brings the legislation within constitutional bounds must be preferred.”82 [84] We cautioned, however, that an interpretation that seeks to bring a provision within constitutional bounds should not be unduly strained.83 With this caution in mind, we held that courts “must prefer the interpretation of [a provision] that will bring it within constitutional bounds over those that do not”, and added “provided that such an interpretation can be reasonably ascribed to the section.”84 The invalidated provisions must therefore be construed consistently with section 28(2) and thus, where possible, interpreted so as to exclude a construction that would be inconsistent with the principle of the best interests of the child. [85] With this approach in mind, I now turn to consider the invalidated provisions. It will be convenient to deal with section 170A(1) first in view of its central role in the protection of child witnesses and the number of inter-related issues that it raises. Section 170A(1) 82 Above n 27 at para 43. 83 Hyundai above n 80 at para 24 and Daniels above n 27 at para 46. 84 Hyundai above n 80 at para 23 and Daniels above n 27 at para 46. 45