NGCOBO J found that the impugned provision was discriminatory by distinguishing between “a prostitute who received money for her favours and her sister who receives, for rendering similar services, a benefit or reward of a different kind such as a paid holiday weekend . . .”.4 [6] It is unfortunate that the High Court did not specify the provision of the Constitution that it found to have been violated by section 20(1)(aA). In particular, it was necessary to indicate whether the finding of discrimination was based on section 9(1) or 9(3) of the Constitution. Nor did the High Court indicate the basis for its conclusion that section 20(1)(aA) could not be justified. 17 (T) at 21B. 4 S v Jordan, above at 800H. 4