MADLANGA J Inspector-General looked into the matter pursuant to a request from the Minister for Intelligence Services in terms of section 7(7)(c) of the Intelligence Services Oversight Act.66 The principal motivation of the NIA for the surveillance was stated to be Mr Macozoma’s links with a foreign intelligence service, which were inimical to national security.67 The Inspector-General’s report found that certain emails had allegedly been intercepted. Purportedly, those emails revealed various conspiracies,68 which, in turn, allegedly resulted in the electronic and physical surveillance of certain individuals and political parties.69 The report concluded that the emails were fabricated by the NIA team.70 [40] It would be naïve to think that these examples are odd ones out and that in all other instances state agencies responsible for surveillance have always acted lawfully. The fact that it is now said that the document on the basis of which Mr Sole was subjected to surveillance cannot be found is quite curious; I deliberately put it no higher. [41] The last two examples show us that blatant mendacity may be the basis of an approach to the designated Judge. And a designated Judge has no means meaningfully to verify the information placed before her or him. As a result, she or he is left none the wiser. Also, by its very nature – in particular because it takes place in complete secrecy,71 on the understanding that the subject of surveillance who is best placed to identify an abuse will never know – surveillance under RICA is susceptible to abuse. A key factor which likely emboldens those who conduct surveillance to abuse the process is thus a sense of impunity. The question then is whether lesser restriction on secrecy in the form of notification would thwart the realisation of what RICA 66 40 of 1994. Office of the Inspector-General of Intelligence “Executive Summary of the Final Report on the Findings of an Investigation into the Legality of the Surveillance Operations Carried Out by the NIA on Mr S Macozoma” Media Briefing, 23 March 2006 at 5. 67 68 Id at 20. 69 Id at 17. 70 Id at 24. 71 This is so because section 16(7)(a) of RICA expressly forbids disclosure of any kind to the subject of the surveillance. 28