MOGOENG CJ “Summarising it, our difficulty with the minority judgment is twofold. First, insofar as it seeks to have Parliament legislate in a manner preferred by the applicant, the minority judgment violates the doctrine of separation of powers.”57 [79] The majority went on to say: “The applicant wants information on the private funding of political parties to be made available in a manner preferred by it. It prefers that the legislation should require the disclosure of the information as a matter of continuous course, rather than once-off upon request. According to the minority judgment, what South Africa must have is systematic disclosure. It may well be that this is ideal; who knows? But that is not the issue. It is for Parliament to make legislative choices as long as they are rational and otherwise constitutionally compliant. Crucially, lack of rationality is not an issue in these proceedings. Despite its protestation to the contrary, what the applicant wants is but a thinly veiled attempt at prescribing to Parliament to legislate in a particular manner. By what dint of right can the applicant do so? None, in the present circumstances. That attempt impermissibly trenches on Parliament’s terrain; and that is proscribed by the doctrine of separation of powers.”58 [80] It is not for this Court to insist on Parliament having to provide for a “continuous and systematic” recordal and disclosure of information on private funding. It suffices to require of Parliament to provide for the holding, preservation and reasonable disclosure of information on private funding. Suspension of the declaration of invalidity [81] The High Court suspended the declaration of invalidity “for 18 months in order to allow Parliament to remedy the defects in PAIA and to allow for the recordal and disclosure of private funding of political parties and independent candidates”. 59 It is 57 My Vote Counts judgment above n 4 at para 122. 58 Id at paras 155-6. 59 High Court judgment above n 5 at para 75. 31