SKWEYIYA J legislature for a court to pronounce judgments on constitutional issues in the absence of a dispute affecting the rights of the parties to the litigation.”12 [223] The Constitution does, however, make specific provision for courts to engage in abstract review of constitutional issues in at least two instances: the review of bills by this Court in rare circumstances,13 and facial constitutional challenges to legislation brought in a competent court. Indeed, challenges of the nature pursued in this matter could have been brought under the broad standing provisions of section 38 of the Constitution.14 Under this section, courts are empowered to grant appropriate relief when rights in the Bill of Rights have been infringed or threatened. In Fose, Ackermann J addressed the breadth of courts’ jurisdiction under this section as follows: “Appropriate relief will in essence be relief that is required to protect and enforce the Constitution. Depending on the circumstances of each particular case the relief may be a declaration of rights, an interdict, a mandamus or such other relief as may be required to ensure that the rights enshrined in the Constitution are protected and enforced. If it is necessary to do so, the courts may even have to fashion new remedies to secure the protection and enforcement of these all important rights.”15 (Footnote omitted.) [224] The critical point is that our courts will consider facial challenges to legislation in a broad range of circumstances. This Court should thus not assume that there is no 12 Zantsi above n 7 at fn 8, citing Borowski v Canada (Attorney General) [1989] 1 S.C.R 342 at 358-62 (a case which discusses this principle in the context of mootness). 13 See sections 79 and 121 of the Constitution. 14 See, for example, Lawyers for Human Rights and Another v Minister of Home Affairs and Another [2004] ZACC 12; 2004 (4) SA 125 (CC); 2004 (7) BCLR 775 (CC) at paras 14-6. 15 Fose v Minister of Safety and Security and Another [1997] ZACC 6; 1997 (3) SA 786 (CC); 1997 (7) BCLR 851 (CC) at para 19, (a case which dealt with the comparable provision in the interim Constitution, section 7(4)). 113