MADLANGA J Ministers of Police and Justice argue that the doctrine of separation of powers militates against the interim relief because it strays into policy which is the preserve of the Executive.171 And the Minister of Justice invokes Glenister II where Ngcobo CJ stated: “Under our constitutional scheme it is the responsibility of the Executive to develop and implement policy. It is also the responsibility of the Executive to initiate legislation in order to implement policy. And it is the responsibility of Parliament to make laws. When making laws Parliament will exercise its judgment as to the appropriate policy to address the situation.”172 [142] The respondents also emphasise that the interim relief will have unintended detrimental consequences on ongoing crime prevention measures by law enforcement agencies. They therefore submit that the expansive nature of the interim relief also falls within the terrain of legislating. That, according to them, is best left to the Legislature. [143] The interim relief granted by the High Court and advocated by the applicants before us – entailing as it does, several insertions into RICA – is quite extensive. Those insertions do appear to be legislative in nature. That immediately raises the question whether it is within this Court’s province to grant relief of that nature. Courts are required – pursuant to declaring a legislative provision invalid – to balance the obligation to provide appropriate relief with the constitutional reality of the separation of powers principle.173 Beyond that, the outer limits of a remedy are bounded only by 171 See section 85(2)(b) of the Constitution. 172 See also Glenister II above n 121 at para 67. 173 In National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality v Minister of Home Affairs [1999] ZACC 17; 2000 (2) SA 1 (CC); 2000 (1) BCLR 39 (CC) at paras 65-6 this Court explained: “In fashioning a declaration of invalidity, a court has to keep in balance two important considerations. One is the obligation to provide the ‘appropriate relief’ under section 38 of the Constitution, to which claimants are entitled when ‘a right in the Bill of Rights has been infringed or threatened’. ... The other consideration a court must keep in mind, is the principle of the separation of powers and, flowing therefrom, the deference it owes to the Legislature in devising a remedy for a breach of the Constitution in any particular case. It is not possible to formulate in general terms what such deference must embrace, for this depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. In essence, however, it involves restraint by the courts in not trespassing onto that part of 74