MADLANGA J as to whether a warrant is to be issued is taken by an impartial and independent Judicial Officer . . . as an important consideration in determining the constitutionality of search powers”, and held that “requiring a search warrant to be issued by a Judicial Officer is an important part of the protection of fundamental rights and, in particular, the right to privacy”.116 Plainly, that puts it beyond question that it is a constitutional requirement that the issuing of search and seizure warrants be authorised by an independent Judicial Officer. [83] This concern for independent judicial authorisation of intrusions into privacy echoes the ruling in Van der Merwe, regarding the validity of search and seizure warrants issued in terms of section 21 of the Criminal Procedure Act. 117 Mogoeng J stated that— “[t]he judicious exercise of this power by [Judicial Officers] enhances protection against unnecessary infringement. They possess qualities and skills essential for the proper exercise of this power, like independence and the ability to evaluate relevant information so as to make an informed decision”.118 (Emphasis added.) [84] Why this is crucial is because – by its very nature – the execution of warrants of search and seizure results in the violation of privacy. The involvement of independent functionaries like members of the Judiciary helps ensure that the risk of unmeritorious intrusions into the privacy of individuals is minimised. This must apply a fortiori (with more force) in the case of surveillance under RICA. That is so because the non-transparent, if not impenetrable, circumstances in which the power of issuing RICA surveillance directions is exercised make it singularly important that there be no apprehension or perception of lack of independence; more important than in the case of issuing search and seizure warrants where the possibility of a challenge is always a reality. And the operative words are “apprehension” and “perception”. 116 Thint (Pty) Ltd v National Director of Public Prosecutions, Zuma v National Director of Public Prosecutions [2008] ZACC 13; 2009 (1) SA 1 (CC); 2008 (12) BCLR 1197 (CC) (Thint) at para 83 (emphasis added). 117 Van Der Merwe above n 58. 118 Id at para 38. 48