SKWEYIYA ADCJ the Court below or in this Court, notwithstanding the opportunity that this Court gave to the parties to make further submissions. It was inappropriate for the High Court to consider the provision‘s constitutional validity in relation to adult offenders and to extend its order to cover all offenders. It is similarly not in the interests of justice for this Court to make findings on the provision‘s application to adult offenders. [32] The state respondents argue further that the High Court erred in including subsection (b) of section 50(2) in the ambit of its order. Subsection (b) deals with the requirement that the court must explain the contents and implications of the order made in terms of subsection (a) to the accused person. This requirement does not relate to the heart of the alleged invalidity and so should not have been included within the ambit of the declaration. I now focus on the constitutional validity of section 50(2)(a), to the exclusion of subsection (b). Should the order of constitutional invalidity be confirmed? a. [33] Does the provision infringe on the rights of the child? The applicant submits that having one‘s particulars entered on the Register infringes that offender‘s rights to dignity, privacy, fair labour practices, and freedom of trade, occupation and profession.33 However, the focus of the argument follows the reasoning of the High Court: that section 50(2) is invalid because it makes no provision for good cause to be shown that an order for registration should not be 33 In terms of sections 10, 14, 23(1) and 22 of the Constitution, respectively. 18