this Court directly on the basis that the applicant s fundamental right has been, is, or is about to be, violated. The applicant represents over 600 practising legal practitioners. The applicant s case is that its members right to freedom of expression as enshrined in s 20 of the Constitution is threatened by the provisions of s 98(2) and s 103 of the Postal and Telecommunications Act [Chapter 12:05] ( the Act ). The applicant seeks an order declaring sections 98(2) and 103 of the Act invalid and of no legal force or effect because they are inconsistent with s 20 of the Constitution. It is the applicant s case that its members, legal practitioners, are in law entitled to free and unhindered communication between themselves and their clients and amongst each other. The applicant contends that the privileged status of legal communications between legal practitioner and client goes beyond the general protection to all persons by the Constitution. The privileged status of lawyer-client communication is time honoured and enshrined in common law and in s 8 of the Civil Evidence Act [Chapter 8:01]. The applicant contends that legal practitioners receive from their clients, private, personal and confidential information. Their clients must of necessity disclose to them information that has not yet been made public or which is of a private and confidential nature and should not be disclosed to the public. In order for legal practitioners to advise their clients effectively they must receive full information and instructions from their clients. Often the dissemination of such information to third parties or the public would cause potential or actual loss, harm and/or prejudice to clients. It is for the protection of clients that the legal privilege accorded to legal practitioner and client communication is recognised and enforced by law. Subsection (2) of s 98 of the Act allows the President to give a direction that postal articles shall be intercepted and detained. The Act defines postal services in very broad terms and the Act does not impose any restriction on the