MHLANTLA J matter to first be determined by the Supreme Court of Appeal. Additionally, this is a constitutional matter and, given the wide public impact the judgment will have, it is in the interests of justice that direct leave to appeal on an urgent basis be granted. It remains for me to consider the merits of the appeal. Merits [28] I commence with a consideration of the nature of the Minister’s powers and whether she acted within the purview of legality. Nature of the Minister’s power [29] The applicants argue that the Minister’s power to determine the deadline for the STB registration and the analogue switch-off date constitutes administrative action. According to them, the Minister had a duty in terms of section 6 of PAJA to consult with affected parties before determining the deadline for the STB registration and the analogue switch-off date. In the event that the decisions were not administrative action, but rather taken in terms of policy, the applicants argue that there was still a duty on the Minister to consult in terms of section 3(5) of the ECA. [30] Before considering these submissions, it is necessary to determine whether the nature of the Minister’s powers constitutes administrative or executive action. [31] The Minister argues that her powers to determine the analogue switch-off date and the parameters of the digital migration process are quintessentially executive powers. In her answering affidavit filed in the High Court, the Minister stated that “[t]he Regulations empower the Minister to determine the analogue switch-off date”. Regulation 3(1) states that “[t]he date for the commencement of the dual illumination period as well as the date for the final switch-off of the analogue signal will be published by the Minister in the Gazette”. However, when the Minister published the analogue switch-off date of 31 March 2022 in the Government Gazette on 28 February 2022, it was done under paragraph 3.3.1 of the BDM Policy. 15 The Minister, therefore,