NGCOBO J flaw in the application of the law but it does not establish a constitutional defect in it. Even if the practice of the police and the prosecutors is to target the “merchants” and not the “customers” that is not relevant to the issue before us in the present case concerning section 20(1)(aA) of the Act, which is whether the order of the High Court declaring the section to be inconsistent with the Constitution should be confirmed. [20] For all these reasons I conclude that section 20(1)(aA) is not inconsistent with section 8(2) of the interim Constitution. Other constitutional challenges [21] Having found that section 20(1)(aA) was inconsistent with the Constitution, the High Court did not consider the other challenges to section 20(1)(aA). Where the constitutionality of a provision is challenged on a number of grounds and the court upholds one such ground it is desirable that it should also express its opinion on the other challenges. This is necessary in the event of this Court declining to confirm on the ground upheld by the High Court. In the absence of the judgment of the High Court on the other grounds, the proper course to follow may be to refer the matter back to the trial court so that it can deal with the other challenges to the impugned provision. Thus failure by the High Court to consider other challenges could result in unnecessary delay in the disposal of a case. [22] In this case, however, there are considerations which militate against sending the matter back to the High Court. In the appeal relating to the brothel provisions, the appellants raised the same constitutional challenges that they had raised in relation to the other challenges to section 11