O’REGAN J and SACHS J “It is noteworthy that the section does not penalize the person who gives the reward in return for the sexual intercourse. In short, the prohibition is directed only at prostitutes and not their customers. This feature of the section reflects a form of discrimination against prostitutes. The discrimination lies in the fact that the customer’s role in the act is not penalized while that of the prostitute is.”9 (Footnotes omitted.) [42] It is worth noting, although not relevant to the proper interpretation of the section, that not only academic commentators have given it this meaning but law enforcement officers appear generally to have done so as well. Not a single case of a prosecution of a customer since 1988 (when section 20(1)(aA) was introduced into the statute) was brought to our attention, and the 9 Burchell and Milton “Crimes Against Sexual Morality” Principles of Criminal Law 2nd ed (Juta: Cape Town 1997) at 630. See also Milton “The Sexual Offences Act” (1988) 1 SACJ 269 at 272: “. . . [T]he legislature’s zeal for removing discrimination falters somewhat here in that while it becomes a crime to be a prostitute it is not made a crime to be the client of the prostitute. If prostitution is to be eradicated one would have thought that it makes sense to penalise as much those who seek commercial sex as those who supply it.” See also the commentary in Milton and Fuller South African Criminal Law and Procedure Service No. 9, 1997 “Sexual Offences” at E3 para 83 where it states that: “Although the section does not specifically mention prostitutes, its gist and intent is . . . that persons who are prostitutes commit the offence. The import of this is that the other partner in the sexual act – the customer – does not commit the offence.” (Footnotes omitted.) 23