O’REGAN J and SACHS J keepers are concerned. Here the Legislature must have a wide discretion. The issues of controlling and regulating sexual activity are complex. Attitudes vary over time and from country to country. Competing policy considerations have to be attended to and the problems of law enforcement in this area are particularly acute. Attention has to be paid to the interest of neighbours. Many voices need to be heard. This is very much an area for legislative choice in which proposals made by the Law Commission could be particularly helpful. [120] We conclude therefore that, in the light of the proper interpretation of the sections, the High Court was correct in concluding that sections 2, 3(b) and (c) do not infringe the Constitution. Remedy [121] We have concluded that section 20(1)(aA) constitutes an unjustifiable infringement of section 8(2) of the interim Constitution. As we held in the Sodomy case,74 the equality jurisprudence of the interim Constitution is of equal application under section 9 of the 1996 Constitution. A conclusion, therefore, that section 20(1)(aA) is in conflict with the interim Constitution, will in the circumstances also render it in conflict with the 1996 Constitution. [122] Section 172 of the 1996 Constitution requires a court when deciding a constitutional matter within its power, to declare any law that is inconsistent with the Constitution to be invalid 74 Above n 38 at para 58-9. 81