MADLANGA J attached to an affidavit filed in court. This, of course, proved that Mr Sole’s communications had indeed been intercepted in 2008. Following this discovery, Mr Sole again attempted to obtain details of the interception, this time from the State Security Agency. In 2016 he was provided with two extensions of an initial interception direction granted in respect of his communications. The extensions did not disclose details of the basis for the initial interception direction. Of course, those details would have been part of the initial interception direction, which was not forthcoming. He was also provided with the same transcripts of his telephonic conversations with Mr Downer, which were attached to the court papers. The State Security Agency informed him that these documents were all that it had on record in relation to the interception of his communications. Consequently, Mr Sole remained in the dark regarding the reason for and lawfulness of the interception. [15] The applicants accordingly approached the High Court, alleging that RICA is unconstitutional to the extent that it fails to provide adequate safeguards to protect the right to privacy. It was common cause before the High Court that state surveillance under RICA does limit the right to privacy. That Court accordingly focused its analysis on the justification leg: can this limitation be justified under section 36(1) of the Constitution? It adjudged RICA inconsistent with the Constitution and declared it invalid to the extent of the inconsistency. It suspended the declaration of invalidity for two years, and – as interim relief to apply during the period of suspension – read-in fairly extensive provisions.28 [16] The applicants’ challenge was founded on various discrete grounds, alleging that RICA is constitutionally deficient on each. First, they argued that RICA is unconstitutional to the extent that it does not provide for a subject of surveillance ever to be notified – even post-surveillance – that she or he was subjected to surveillance 28 High Court judgment above n 8 at orders 1 and 5. 16