O’REGAN J and SACHS J values of the Bill of Rights as a whole and that the rights intersect and overlap one another. It does not follow from this however that it is appropriate to base our constitutional analysis on a right not expressly included within the Constitution. Accordingly, we will deal in turn with each of the rights said to be infringed. The right freely to engage in economic activity [54] We deal first with the alleged infringement of the right freely to engage in economic activity and to pursue a livelihood anywhere in the national territory. In Lawrence,17 this Court identified two possible interpretations for section 26 of the interim Constitution as follows: “The meaning of s 26 is, however, by no means clear. There seem to be two possible approaches to its interpretation. The first focuses on the meaning of free participation in economic activity and in pursuing a livelihood. In a modern democratic society a right ‘freely’ to engage in economic activity and to earn a livelihood does not imply a right to do so without any constraints whatsoever .... On this approach to the interpretation of s 26 the right to engage in economic activity and to pursue a livelihood anywhere in the national territory would entail a right to do so freely with others. Implicit in this is that the participation should be in accordance with law. .... The alternative approach is to read s 26(1) and (2) together as indicating that all constraints upon economic activity and the earning of a livelihood which fall outside the 17 S v Lawrence; S v Negal; S v Solberg 1997 (4) SA 1176 (CC); 1997 (10) BCLR 1348 (CC) at paras 32, 34 and 37. 31