The court affirmed that the exercise of presidential prerogative powers is subject to judicial review, but it nonetheless found that President Nelson Mandela had acted fairly and lawfully in pardoning imprisoned mothers, but not imprisoned fathers, in a June 1994 presidential decree.

17, which granted special remission of the prison sentences of certain categories of offenders, including imprisoned mothers who had minor children under the age of 12 years.

Hugo applied to the Supreme Court of South Africa to challenge the constitutionality of the Presidential Act.

Finally, the impact of the discrimination on imprisoned male fathers was not severe: "The Presidential Act may have denied them an opportunity it afforded women, but it cannot be said that it fundamentally impaired their rights of dignity or sense of equal worth."

Goldstone's judgment was also notable for its defence of the applicability of judicial review to the exercise of a presidential prerogative.

Goldstone's judgment was joined by Justices Arthur Chaskalson, Ismail Mahomed, Laurie Ackermann, Pius Langa, Tholie Madala, and Albie Sachs.

Kriegler dissented on the majority's finding of fairness, holding instead that the sex discrimination perpetrated by the Presidential Act was unfair.