O’REGAN J and SACHS J from the third appellant, a prostitute or sex worker.1 The three appellants admitted in the Magistrate’s Court that they had contravened the Sexual Offences Act 23 of 1957, which criminalises providing sex for reward and brothel-keeping, but claimed that the relevant provisions of the Act were unconstitutional and should be declared invalid. Since the Magistrate’s Court has no power to declare statutes unconstitutional, they did not resist conviction in that court. After being found guilty and sentenced by the magistrate, they appealed to the Pretoria High Court to have the provisions set aside. In a judgment handed down on 2 August 2001,2 the High Court held that section 20(1)(aA) of the Act, which penalised sex for reward, was unconstitutional. That section reads: “20. Persons living on earnings of prostitution or committing or assisting in commission of indecent acts. – (1) Any person who – .... (aA) has unlawful carnal intercourse, or commits an act of indecency, with any other person for reward; .... shall be guilty of an offence.” [35] The High Court went on to hold that sections 2, 3(b) and 3(c) of the Act (the brothel provisions) which covered brothel-keeping were not unconstitutional. These provisions read: 1 In this judgment, we use both “prostitute” and “sex worker”. There is a debate in the literature about the proper terminology. (See, for example, J G Raymond “Prostitution as Violence Against Women: NGO Stonewalling in Beijing and Elsewhere” (1998) 21(1) Women’s Studies International Forum 1; and E Bernstein “What’s Wrong with Prostitution? What’s Right with Sex Work? Comparing Markets in Female Sexual Labor” (1999) 10 Hastings Women’s Law Journal 91). It has been argued that the word “prostitute” has degrading connotations and that the term “sex worker” should be employed to avoid them. We have chosen to avoid privileging one term over another. 2 Reported as S v Jordan and Others 2002 (1) SA 797 (T); 2001 (10) BCLR 1055 (T); 2002 (1) SACR 17 (T). 17