27 [77] The only argument on behalf of the respondents can be risks to the integrity of the polling process, and a strain on financial and logistical resources available. Such argument, however, falls away when regard is had to the fact that the logistical arrangements have to be made for the classes of citizens abroad who are allowed to bring out special votes. The only issue can be financial namely the costs of transporting extra ballot papers to and from South African embassies, High Commissions and consulates which, however, would not place an undue burden on the respondents’ resources. Any risks attendant to the bringing out of special votes will be the same as those existing for the special votes which are allowed in section 33 as it presently stands. [78] It is clearly unfair discrimination to exclude certain classes of citizens from exercising their right to vote whilst allowing others (who have no distinguishing features other than their reason for being abroad) to vote. In Larbi-Odam v MEC for Education (North-West Province 1998 (1) SA 745 (CC) the exclusion of noncitizens from appointment in permanent teaching posts was held to be unfair discrimination. (See also Union of Refugee Women and Others v Director: Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority and Others 2007 (4) SA 395 (CC)). [79] It is clear that the application must succeed. During argument Mr. Pelser indicated that prayer 6.6 was abandoned. [80] Costs must follow the event. [81] The following order is accordingly made: 1. An order is granted in terms of prayers 1, 2, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 3, 4,5, 6, 6.1, 6.2 6.3, 6.4, 6.5 , 6.7 of the notice of motion.