The respondent, on the other hand, concedes that sections 98(2) and 103 of the Act are a derogation on the guaranteed freedom of expression but argued that both provisions fall within the permissible exceptions under s 20(2) of the Constitution and are reasonably justifiable in a democratic society, and therefore constitutional. It is apparent from the stance of the parties that the facts of this case are common cause. The issue that falls for determination is whether sections 98(2) and 103 of the Act are consistent with s 20 of the Constitution. The applicant has submitted that the issue here relates in general terms, to the interception of communications, but more specifically relates to interference with lawyer-client privilege which would result from the interception of mail and telecommunications between a lawyer and his client. The concern of the applicant is that the right of the State to intercept communications in terms of sections 98 and 103 of the Act put at risk the privilege of such communication and this constitutes an interference with the constitutional rights of both the lawyer and the client in terms of s 20 of the Constitution. The applicant contends that sections 98 and 103 of the Act place at risk the confidentiality of the communications and thus negate the privilege that is granted to those communications. LAWYER-CLIENT PRIVILEGE Mr de Bourbon, for the applicant, argued strenuously that the lawyer-client privilege was fundamental to the proper administration of justice. He argued that the existence of the privilege is in the interests of all sectors of the community including the State itself. It was also argued that at the heart of this privilege are two fundamental rights. Firstly, the right of persons freely to communication with one another and, secondly, the right to fair justice. If this privilege is destroyed or threatened then these rights become meaningless. The Court was referred to a wide range of authorities that underpinned the importance and significance of the lawyer-client privilege. In the case of Baker v Campbell1 it was held that the privilege existed not simply in relation to litigation but to advice sought between a client and a lawyer so that the client can regulate his affairs. In another case cited to this Court it was held that the privilege between lawyer and client even overrode the policy