MADLANGA J to the court “is to provide cogent and helpful submissions that assist the court”.147 (My emphasis). A court’s task is to determine the dispute presented to it by the parties. It stands to reason then that assistance to it must relate to the determination of that dispute. Adding a different dispute – like an additional appeal – not litigated by the parties is not assistance with the dispute before the court. If anything, that amounts to burdening the Court with something else to determine. That is not what rule 10 and the In re Certain Amicus Curiae Applications statement of law envisage. [111] Therefore, it seems to me that it is not in the interests of justice to entertain the issue raised by the third amicus. That said, I will not categorically decide the question whether an amicus may lodge an appeal outside of the application or appeal being litigated by the parties. That is not necessary here. I limit what I say to a conclusion that is based on the interests of justice in the circumstances of this case; interests of justice do not dictate that the additional appeal of the third amicus be entertained. It is so that in our age of mass data surveillance, private actors arguably pose a comparable threat to privacy as does the state. So, one cannot make light of the issues raised in the appeal by the third amicus. Although the arguments of the third amicus on the issues are compelling, they were not adequately ventilated by the parties. That is understandable because they do not relate to the issues in dispute between the parties. Practising lawyers and journalists issue [112] Before the High Court the applicants contended that a practising lawyer owes a client a duty to keep communications between them confidential, and that it is essential to the practice of journalism for journalists to preserve the confidentiality of the identities of their sources. The argument continued that the surveillance of journalists constitutes a limitation of the right to freedom of expression and the media under section 16. And the surveillance of a practising lawyer infringes legal professional privilege. Because this privilege is an essential part of the right to a fair trial, the 147 In re Certain Amicus Curiae Applications: Minister of Health v Treatment Action Campaign [2002] ZACC 13; 2002 (5) SA 713 (CC); 2002 (10) BCLR 1023 (CC) at para 5 (emphasis added). 60