NGCOBO J whether the High Court had jurisdiction must be determined at the time when the High Court raised the issues. [57] The High Court was mindful of the fact that the amendments were still in their bill form when it heard argument.50 It did not, however, address its jurisdiction to consider these amendments. It had none. Given the need to respect the separation of powers in a constitutional democracy, this is unacceptable. Courts must be astute not to assume jurisdiction they do not have. [58] Section 170A(1) stands on a different footing. However, in the light of the conclusion I reach in the next question, it is not necessary to determine this issue. [59] The next question is whether this Court should proceed to consider whether to confirm the orders of invalidity in respect of all the provisions that were declared invalid by the High Court. Should this Court consider the confirmation of the invalidated provisions? [60] In the Ordinary Court Martial51 case this Court considered the scope of its obligations in confirmatory proceedings in the context of mootness. In that case, the question was whether this Court was obliged under section 172(2) to consider the declaration of invalidity of a provision that had been declared invalid by a High Court 50 Above n 10 at paras 71-4. 51 President, Ordinary Court Martial and Others v Freedom of Expression Institute and Others [1999] ZACC 10; 1999 (4) SA 682 (CC); 1999 (11) BCLR 1219 (CC) at para 8. 31