SKWEYIYA J [214] In exercising this discretion, this Court must enquire into the interests of justice. Typically, the interests of justice require that we consider the validity of provisions declared unconstitutional by a lower court in order to avoid uncertainty as to their ongoing validity. When a dispute has become moot before reaching this Court, this concern is diminished. This is the reason that Ordinary Court Martial identifies mootness as a situation where this Court may not be required to determine the validity of provisions declared unconstitutional by a lower court.4 [215] Ordinary Court Martial suggests that there may well be other situations where this Court should exercise its discretion not to consider constitutional issues raised in confirmation proceedings.5 We have never squarely confronted a situation in which the interests of justice caution us not to engage in a substantive evaluation of the provisions in question on the basis that the constitutional issues were improperly raised in the court below. As the analysis below demonstrates, this case presents such a situation. What do the interests of justice require in this case? [216] Three factors inform Ngcobo J’s position that the interests of justice require this Court to consider the constitutional validity of the invalidated provisions of the CPA.6 One of these factors – in his view the most significant of the three – is that if we do 4 Ordinary Court Martial above n 2 at para 8. 5 Id at para 16 where Langa CJ stated: “At least where the provision declared invalid by the High Court has subsequently been repealed by an Act of Parliament, the Court has a discretion to decide whether or not it should deal with the matter.” (My emphasis.) 6 At [60]-[69] above. 109