and Provision of Communication-Related Information Act 70 of 2002 (RICA) fails to— (a) provide for safeguards to ensure that a Judge designated in terms of section 1 is sufficiently independent; (b) provide for notifying the subject of surveillance of the fact of her or his surveillance as soon as notification can be given without jeopardising the purpose of surveillance after surveillance has been terminated; (c) adequately provide safeguards to address the fact that interception directions are sought and obtained ex parte; (d) adequately prescribe procedures to ensure that data obtained pursuant to the interception of communications is managed lawfully and not used or interfered with unlawfully, including prescribing procedures to be followed for examining, copying, sharing, sorting through, using, storing or destroying the data; and (e) provide adequate safeguards where the subject of surveillance is a practising lawyer or journalist. 7. The declaration of unconstitutionality in paragraph 6 takes effect from the date of this judgment and is suspended for 36 months to afford Parliament an opportunity to cure the defect causing the invalidity. 8. During the period of suspension referred to in paragraph 7, RICA shall be deemed to include the following additional sections: “Section 23A Disclosure that the person in respect of whom a direction, extension of a direction or entry warrant is sought is a journalist or practising lawyer (1) Where the person in respect of whom a direction, extension of a direction or entry warrant is sought in terms of sections 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22 or 23, whichever is applicable, is a journalist or practising lawyer, the application must disclose to the designated Judge the fact that the intended subject of the direction, extension of a