ZONDI AJ invalidity should have an indefinite retrospective effect so as to apply to sexual offences that had already prescribed by 27 April 1994. [31] Lastly, on the issue of costs, the applicants abide the decision of this Court on the costs appeal by the Estate. But they seek costs from the Minister for this confirmation application. First respondent’s submissions [32] The first respondent does not oppose nor make any submissions concerning the application for confirmation of the order of constitutional invalidity. Nor does it oppose the application to adduce further evidence. [33] However, the Estate appeals in terms of rule 16(2) of this Court‘s rules against the costs order of the High Court. This will be expanded on further, later in the judgment. Second respondent’s submissions [34] The Minister supports the application for confirmation of the declaration of invalidity and generally supports the submissions of the applicants, but rejects the applicants‘ opposition to the suspension of the declaration of invalidity with an interim reading-in. Further, the Minister calls for a longer suspension period to allow Parliament to effect remedial legislative amendments. [35] The Minister concedes that the High Court was correct in declaring section 18 invalid, but on a slightly different basis. The Minister contends that section 18 creates two broad categories of sexual offences: the first category comprises rape or compelled rape, and using a child or mentally disabled person for pornographic purposes; and the second category is all other sexual offences. The first category is not subject to the 20-year time-bar, whereas the second is and there appears to be no rationale for this distinction, nor has any explanation been given. In the absence of a 15