O’REGAN J and SACHS J and counter-denials, the differences in position adopted by the experts and other deponents related not so much to empirical facts as to how to characterise the activities concerned and what conclusions should be drawn from them. Little of the argument accordingly turned on disputed questions of fact. The issues [38] There are two separate constitutional issues before the Court: (a) whether the Court should confirm the order made by the High Court declaring section 20(1)(aA) to be inconsistent with the Constitution; and (b) whether the Court should uphold the appeal and find sections 2, 3(b) and 3(c) of the Act, as read with section 1, to be inconsistent with the Constitution. These issues will be dealt with separately. We agree with Ngcobo J for the reasons he gives that the applicable Constitution in this case is the interim Constitution. The proper interpretation of section 20(1)(aA) [39] Before turning to an analysis of section 20(1)(aA), it is necessary to consider its proper interpretation. The High Court held that to the extent that section 20(1)(aA) criminalised only the prostitute or sex worker and not the client, it amounted to unfair discrimination. The High Court also held that to the extent that the provision criminalised any sexual intercourse between consenting adults where some favour or consideration was given by one party to the other, it was in breach of the Constitution. [40] Counsel for the state argued that the High Court interpretation was constitutionally 21