Previous 1 / 97 Next

CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA Case CCT 278/19 In the matter between: AMABHUNGANE CENTRE FOR INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM NPC STEPHEN PATRICK SOLE First Applicant Second Applicant and MINISTER OF JUSTICE AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES MINISTER OF STATE SECURITY MINISTER OF COMMUNICATIONS MINISTER OF DEFENCE AND MILITARY VETERANS First Respondent Second Respondent Third Respondent Fourth Respondent MINISTER OF POLICE Fifth Respondent OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF INTELLIGENCE Sixth Respondent OFFICE FOR INTERCEPTION CENTRES Seventh Respondent NATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS CENTRE Eighth Respondent JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE Ninth Respondent STATE SECURITY AGENCY Tenth Respondent MINISTER OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

amaBhungane Centre for Investigative Journalism v. Minister of Justice and Minister of Police

Case Law

Country

South Africa

Country Location

Latitude: -28.58043087631903

Longitude: 24.820993917210945

Country Location (linked Case Law): South Africa

Decision Date: Feb 4, 2021

Case Status: Closed

Case Outcome (Procedural)

Affirmed Lower Court

Case Outcome (Disposition)

Law or Action Overturned or Deemed Unconstitutional

Keywords

Freedom of Expression

Judicial Body: Constitutional Court

Court Name: South African Constitutional Court

Case Number: CCT 278/19 and CCT 279/19

Case Summary: The South African Constitutional Court declared various elements of the legislation authorizing interception of communications unconstitutional and invalid. After a journalist learned that his communications had been intercepted, he and an investigative journalism center approached the Court, arguing that the legislation had serious shortcomings and infringed the right to privacy. The High Court held that the law was unconstitutional, and, on appeal, the Constitutional Court confirmed the High Court’s ruling.

The Court emphasized that a lack of safeguards within the law prevented oversight and accountability, and the secrecy that covered the interception regime prevented any challenge to orders of surveillance. The Court noted that this secrecy and impunity heightened the risk of abuse and increased violations of the right to privacy.

Case Significance: The decision establishes a binding or persuasive precedent within its jurisdiction.

Related Caselaw (self)

Amabhungane Centre for Investigative Journalism v. Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

Related Law

Regulation of Interception of Communications and Provision of Communication-related Information Act 70 of 2002 Regulations

Source URL: Columbia Global Freedom of Expression

Collection

CIPIT

Date Updated: Jun 28, 2024

Primary Documents

AmaBhungane-RICA- Case.pdf
English
Download View