Close Menu
TechCentralTechCentral

    Subscribe to the newsletter

    Get the best South African technology news and analysis delivered to your e-mail inbox every morning.

    Facebook X (Twitter) YouTube LinkedIn
    WhatsApp Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn YouTube
    TechCentralTechCentral
    • News

      Vodacom’s Maziv deal gets makeover ahead of crucial hearing

      18 July 2025

      Cut electricity prices for data centres: Andile Ngcaba

      18 July 2025

      Takealot taps Mr D to deliver toys, pet food and future growth

      18 July 2025

      ‘Oh, Ani!’: Elon’s edgy bot stirs ethical storm

      18 July 2025

      Trump U-turn on Nvidia spurs talk of grand bargain with China

      18 July 2025
    • World

      Grok 4 arrives with bold claims and fresh controversy

      10 July 2025

      Samsung’s bet on folding phones faces major test

      10 July 2025

      Bitcoin pushes higher into record territory

      10 July 2025

      OpenAI to launch web browser in direct challenge to Google Chrome

      10 July 2025

      Cupertino vs Brussels: Apple challenges Big Tech crackdown

      7 July 2025
    • In-depth

      The 1940s visionary who imagined the Information Age

      14 July 2025

      MultiChoice is working on a wholesale overhaul of DStv

      10 July 2025

      Siemens is battling Big Tech for AI supremacy in factories

      24 June 2025

      The algorithm will sing now: why musicians should be worried about AI

      20 June 2025

      Meta bets $72-billion on AI – and investors love it

      17 June 2025
    • TCS

      TCS+ | Samsung unveils significant new safety feature for Galaxy A-series phones

      16 July 2025

      TCS+ | MVNX on the opportunities in South Africa’s booming MVNO market

      11 July 2025

      TCS | Connecting Saffas – Renier Lombard on The Lekker Network

      7 July 2025

      TechCentral Nexus S0E4: Takealot’s big Post Office jobs plan

      4 July 2025

      TCS | Tech, townships and tenacity: Spar’s plan to win with Spar2U

      3 July 2025
    • Opinion

      A smarter approach to digital transformation in ICT distribution

      15 July 2025

      In defence of equity alternatives for BEE

      30 June 2025

      E-commerce in ICT distribution: enabler or disruptor?

      30 June 2025

      South Africa pioneered drone laws a decade ago – now it must catch up

      17 June 2025

      AI and the future of ICT distribution

      16 June 2025
    • Company Hubs
      • Africa Data Centres
      • AfriGIS
      • Altron Digital Business
      • Altron Document Solutions
      • Altron Group
      • Arctic Wolf
      • AvertITD
      • Braintree
      • CallMiner
      • CambriLearn
      • CYBER1 Solutions
      • Digicloud Africa
      • Digimune
      • Domains.co.za
      • ESET
      • Euphoria Telecom
      • Incredible Business
      • iONLINE
      • Iris Network Systems
      • LSD Open
      • NEC XON
      • Network Platforms
      • Next DLP
      • Ovations
      • Paracon
      • Paratus
      • Q-KON
      • SevenC
      • SkyWire
      • Solid8 Technologies
      • Telit Cinterion
      • Tenable
      • Vertiv
      • Videri Digital
      • Wipro
      • Workday
    • Sections
      • AI and machine learning
      • Banking
      • Broadcasting and Media
      • Cloud services
      • Contact centres and CX
      • Cryptocurrencies
      • Education and skills
      • Electronics and hardware
      • Energy and sustainability
      • Enterprise software
      • Fintech
      • Information security
      • Internet and connectivity
      • Internet of Things
      • Investment
      • IT services
      • Lifestyle
      • Motoring
      • Public sector
      • Retail and e-commerce
      • Science
      • SMEs and start-ups
      • Social media
      • Talent and leadership
      • Telecoms
    • Events
    • Advertise
    TechCentralTechCentral
    Home » In-depth » What the Rica judgment means

    What the Rica judgment means

    By Tebogo Tshwane17 September 2019
    Twitter LinkedIn Facebook WhatsApp Email Telegram Copy Link
    News Alerts
    WhatsApp

    The state’s ability to spy on people’s communication without informing them is unconstitutional and its ability to conduct bulk surveillance on South African citizens has been declared unlawful and invalid by the high court in Johannesburg.

    On Monday, Judge Roland Sutherland issued the judgment — a victorious end for the amaBhungane Centre for Investigative Journalism, which challenged the constitutionality and validity of parts of the Regulation of Interception of Communications and Provision of Communication-Related Information Act (Rica), to reduce the state’s one-sided powers to spy on citizens.

    amaBhungane launched the legal battle against the ministers of justice and state security after it became aware that journalist Sam Sole was being spied on by the state under Rica.

    An applicant that is conducting surveillance should inform the individual being spied on within 90 days of finishing the surveillance

    The act allows for the state to justifiably intercept people’s communications in light of serious crimes and threats to national security. The fact that a person’s information was intercepted can be kept secret for perpetuity unless it is revealed in court proceedings as part of the evidence.

    Listing how abuses of the act can occur due to this secrecy, Sutherland’s judgment noted that the state provided “no rebuttal or explanation or effort to justify why the interception was attempted” on Sole’s communication.

    Beyond Sole, the judgment also made note of further abuses where journalists Stephan Hofstatter and Mzilikazi wa Afrika were spied on under false pretences, after the surveillance applicant had “blatantly lied” about them being criminals in order to gain a court order to authorise the surveillance.

    ‘Vulnerabilities’

    To remedy these “vulnerabilities”, the judgment has found sections of Rica to be unconstitutional and invalid, starting with the fact that the act does not prescribe a process for people to be informed about state surveillance. Parliament has been given two years to remedy these “defects”.

    In the interim, Sutherland has ordered that an applicant that is conducting surveillance should inform the individual being spied on within 90 days of finishing the surveillance. The applicant will also have to confirm with the designated judge that the person has been notified.

    Extensions to delaying disclosure may only be granted in “exceptional circumstances” and this delay should not exceed 180 days. Should the delay reach three years, the decision has to be adjudicated by a panel of three judges.

    The “designated judge” who grants court orders allowing for interception is currently interpreted as a retired judge appointed at the discretion of the justice minister, who serves a fixed but renewable term.

    amaBhungane argued that the judge’s independence is compromised by the selection process and the unlimited duration of their appointment. In his order, Sutherland said the retired judge should rather be nominated by the chief justice and then appointed by the minister for a “non-renewable term of two years”.

    Media lawyer Dario Milo, a partner at Webber Wentzel, the instructing attorneys for amaBhungane, said the order curbed the abuse of power to surveil.

    It assists in ensuring that privacy is preserved because state officials will know they can only apply for surveillance in clear cases

    “It allows the subject who was unlawfully surveilled to challenge the surveillance (even though it is after the fact) and claim damages or a declaratory order,” said Milo. “It assists in ensuring that privacy is preserved because state officials will know they can only apply for surveillance in clear cases.”

    Independent legal analyst Phephelaphi Dube described the judgment as a “a delicate balancing act between the right of the state to ensure that citizens are kept safe and for the individual rights of privacy”.

    “It isn’t necessarily saying the state must always notify an individual, because obviously that can jeopardise ongoing investigations. But it provides a more nuanced approach in terms of how the courts can go about granting this court order.”

    Protection for journalists

    For instance, Sutherland notes that the authorities can’t inform individuals prior to surveillance being completed, because this could jeopardise an investigation.

    The judgment further calls for parliament to prescribe a process for how state officials need to gather, handle, store and destroy collected data.

    Sutherland’s judgment now requires applicants to disclose that the subject of their surveillance is a journalist or a lawyer when seeking authorisation to conduct surveillance.

    “The designated judge shall only grant the order sought if satisfied that the order is necessary and appropriate,” states the court document, adding that the designated judge could add limitations they may consider necessary given the subject’s occupation and the privacy implications thereof.

    “Around the world, surveillance on journalists is a major threat to media freedom,” said Milo.

    He added that “this judgment recognises the sanctity of the relationship” between a journalist and their source (and a lawyer and their client).

    It is important to have that extra layer over organs of state to ensure that the original mandate is not being subverted…

    Putting it more bluntly, Dube said considering that what had prompted the case was unjustified surveillance on Sole, the order limits the ability for organs of state to be abused in order to further the interests of highly connected political individuals.

    “If you look at discussions about the Sars rogue unit and state capture it is important to have that extra layer over organs of state to ensure that the original mandate is not being subverted to further narrow party political interests,” said Dube.

    Mass surveillance and foreign surveillance interception by the National Communications Centre has been declared unlawful and invalid, given that South Africa does not have a law that allows for this.

    Next, amaBhungane will apply to the constitutional court to confirm the declarations of invalidity made by the high court, as required by the constitution. Dube said in terms of general practice it is rare for the constitutional court to overturn such findings.

    • This article was originally published on Moneyweb and is used here with permission


    amaBhungane Dario Milo National Communications Centre Rica top
    Subscribe to TechCentral Subscribe to TechCentral
    Share. Facebook Twitter LinkedIn WhatsApp Telegram Email Copy Link
    Previous ArticleZAR X launches blockchain platform for unit trusts
    Next Article Central banks have nothing to fear from libra: Facebook

    Related Posts

    Icasa wants control of Rica

    1 April 2025

    This mobile provider is failing to implement Rica

    12 November 2024

    The great big flaw with Rica – and how to fix it

    8 May 2024
    Company News

    Vertiv to acquire custom rack solutions manufacturer

    18 July 2025

    SA businesses embrace gen AI – but strategy and skills are lagging

    17 July 2025

    Ransomware in South Africa: the human factor behind the growing crisis

    16 July 2025
    Opinion

    A smarter approach to digital transformation in ICT distribution

    15 July 2025

    In defence of equity alternatives for BEE

    30 June 2025

    E-commerce in ICT distribution: enabler or disruptor?

    30 June 2025

    Subscribe to Updates

    Get the best South African technology news and analysis delivered to your e-mail inbox every morning.

    © 2009 - 2025 NewsCentral Media

    Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.