Constitutional Court judges poke holes in the Rica Act
Constitutional Court judges on Tuesday observed that surveillance legislation did not provide for the appointment of a designated judge to authorise interception orders.
A judge noted there was no requirement in the Regulation of Interception of Communications and Provision of Communication-Related Information Act (Rica) for an applicant seeking an interception order to make it under oath.
This could lead to the applicant not telling the truth to the judge, and not being held liable for the lies because the application was not made under oath, the judge observed.
These observations were made in the court application by the amaBhungane Centre for Investigative Journalism and journalist Sam Sole, who want the court to confirm an order made by the high court in Pretoria in September 2019.
The high court ordered that Rica was unconstitutional to the extent that it failed to contain adequate safeguards to protect the rights to privacy, access to courts, freedom of expression and the media, as well as legal privilege.
Rica is the law which permits the interception of people’s communications by authorised state officials, including police and state security.
Though the high court can declare a portion of the act unconstitutional, only the Constitutional Court can confirm the constitutional invalidity.
The issue of the lack of an “empowering provision” in the appointment of the designated judge was first raised by justice Chris Jafta, who asked Steven Budlender SC, counsel for amaBhungane and Sole, whether there was any section in the act empowering the justice minister to appoint the judge.
There is no provision in the act which empowers the minister to appoint the designated judge.
“Designated judge” is contained in the definitions section of the act and refers to any judge of a high court who is appointed by the minister for the purpose of the act.
When asked by chief justice Mogoeng Mogoeng where the minister of justice got the power to appoint the judge, Kennedy Tsatsawane SC, counsel for the state security minister, said there was no empowering provision in the act.
Mogoeng asked Tsatsawane what should happen to the surveillance regime if the court found there was no power in the act to appoint the judge.
“This means the court will have to craft a just and equitable order that will address the lacuna,” Tsatsawane said.
Judge Stevan Majiedt pointed out to counsel for the minister of police, Simon Phaswane, that there was no requirement in the act to make an interception application under oath.
“We accept that. It is a little bit of draconian legislation,” Phaswane said.
Mogeng asked whether the executive should go back to the drawing board and start Rica again.
Phaswane said the justice minister had admitted there was work under way to overhaul the legislation.
The court reserved judgment.
Would you like to comment on this article or view other readers' comments?
Register (it’s quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.