SKWEYIYA J suffered by the very complainant the High Court wished to protect. Even if Mr Phaswane returns, the complainant may have to testify again in order for the accused to be sentenced. The Constitution affords paramount importance to the best interests of the child.31 It is apparent that the High Court’s postponement of the matter pending decision on the constitutionality of the provisions was ultimately not in the best interests of the two complainants. [242] This Court has specifically encouraged judges to raise constitutional issues of their own accord,32 but has never declared open season for judges to address any and all constitutional matters, however irrelevant to the facts of the case. When, in confirmation proceedings, we are faced with a lower court judgment that issues declarations of invalidity in respect of irrelevant statutory provisions, this Court is naturally inclined to express its displeasure. [243] This Court has reason to doubt the efficacy of relying on criticism alone to discourage improper actions. This Court recently described the routine violation of certain filing deadlines as a “growing trend”.33 This practice has developed, at least in part, because of our willingness at the outset of our constitutional democracy to condone late filing in the hope that harsh language would shame litigants into future compliance. This Court has now recognised that harsh language on its own is not 31 See section 28(2) of the Constitution. 32 Carmichele v Minister of Safety and Security [2001] ZACC 22; 2001 (4) SA 938 (CC); 2001 (10) BCLR 995 (CC) at para 36. 33 Van Wyk v Unitas Hospital [2007] ZACC 24; 2008 (2) SA 472 (CC); 2008 (4) BCLR 442 (CC) at para 33. 121