23 Judgment No. CCZ 2/18 Constitutional Application No. CCZ 86/15 appreciates the needs of its own people. The power to classify or particularise objects of legislation must, in the nature of things, be left to the law-making authorities. REASONABLE DIFFERENTIATION AND EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW The right to equal protection of the law enshrined in s 56(1) of the Constitution does not prohibit the enactment of law based on reasonable differentiation of groups of people for different treatment in respect of the purpose of the legislation. Section 56(1) of the Constitution leaves it to the courts to decide when a classification of persons is prohibited under its provisions. The doctrine of classification evolved by the courts is not a paraphrase of s 56(1) of the Constitution. It is merely a judicial formula for determining whether the legislative or executive action in question is arbitrary and therefore a violation of the right of the claimant to equal protection of the law. See E P Royappa v State of Tamil Nadu 1974 SCR 248. If unequal treatment of various groups of people addressed by the retrospective legislation is to be upheld under s 56(1) of the Constitution, there must be differences of such a type and weight that they can justify the difference of treatment. Unequal treatment and justification must be adequately related to each other. The purpose of the right to equal protection of the law enshrined in s 56(1) of the Constitution is to ensure that those in similar circumstances and conditions who are the subjects of the legislation are treated equally, both in the privileges and in the liabilities imposed. There should be, as between them, equal protection of the law. The right does not require equal treatment of people who are in different circumstances. The difference must exist, characterised by objective