20 in the voting district in which the person is registered as a voter” on election day and the legislature called such mechanism “special votes”. [53] It stands to reason that the term “special” was not and could not have been intended to convey that such mechanism would be a privilege afforded to some and denied to others. That would of necessity be in conflict with the Constitution. [54] Furthermore, Parliament is not entitled to re-determine the electorate because that was already done by the Constitution. It follows logically that special votes could not have been granted by Parliament at will to whosoever the legislature thought fit for such privilege. [55] The Electoral Act of necessity had to comply with sections 7, 9 and 36 of the Constitution. [56] In so far as the Electoral Act does not, as in this case, if offends against basic human dignity and equality of every affected citizen. [57] By reason of the fact that section 33 of the Electoral Act respects, protects, promotes and fulfils the right to vote of some adult citizens but not the right to vote of others, section 33 must be adjudicated upon by taking into account section 36 of the Constitution which reads as follows: “LIMITATION OF RIGHTS (1) The rights in the Bill of Rights may be limited only in terms of law of general application to the extent that the limitation in reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom, taking into account all relevant factors, including - (a) The nature of the right; (b) The importance of the purpose of the limitation; (c) The nature and extent of the limitation;