NGCOBO J [7] When a court concludes that a provision in a statute limits a constitutional right, it is necessary first, to identify the specific provision of the Constitution that is limited by the impugned provision, and second, to determine whether the limitation is justifiable in terms of section 36(1) of the Constitution. This Court has on more than one occasion pointed out that the enquiry into the constitutional validity of a provision in a statute requires the court to engage in a two-stage enquiry: first, it must determine whether the impugned provision limits a constitutional right. If it does, the second enquiry arises. That enquiry relates to the question whether the limitation of the right is justifiable in terms of section 36(1).5 Does Section 20(1)(aA) discriminate unfairly against women? [8] The central issue that was debated in this Court is whether section 20(1)(aA) discriminates unfairly against women. That debate turned largely upon the proper construction of section 20(1)(aA). On behalf of the State it was contended that upon a proper construction the section strikes at both the prostitute and the customer and hence it is not discriminatory. The appellants and the amici contended that it strikes only at the prostitute and hence it is discriminatory. In my view, this matter can conveniently be approached on the footing that the section is directed at the prostitute only and not the customer. 5 Coetzee v Government of the Republic of South Africa; Matiso and Others v Commanding Officer, Port Elizabeth Prison, and Others 1995 (4) SA 631 (CC); 1995 (10) BCLR 1382 (CC) at para 9; S v Williams and Others 1995 (3) SA 632 (CC); 1995 (7) BCLR 861 (CC) at para 54. 5