MADLANGA J Judge. To exacerbate the situation, this lack of structural independence may also lead to a reasonable perception of lack of independence. Obviously, this is something Parliament may address with relative ease. [94] RICA is thus declared unconstitutional to the extent that it fails to ensure adequate safeguards for an independent judicial authorisation of interception. Ex parte issue [95] Section 16(7)(a) of RICA provides that “[a]n application must be considered and an interception direction issued without any notice to the person or customer to whom the application applies and without hearing such person or customer”. The rationale for this ex parte process is obvious: the surveillance would be futile if the subject were to be aware of it. The applicants do not challenge this. [96] However, the result is that an application for an interception direction that may severely and irreparably infringe the privacy rights of the subject is granted on the basis of information provided only by the state agency requesting the direction. The designated Judge is required to issue the direction on the basis of that one-sided information. Save perhaps for relatively obvious shortcomings, inaccuracies or even falsehoods, the designated Judge is not in a position meaningfully to interrogate the information. For that reason, as evidenced by the example of the surveillance of Mr Mzilikazi wa Afrika and Mr Stephen Hofstatter, surveillance directions may be issued on unadulterated lies. And the designated Judge could not be any the wiser. According to the Minister of State Security, there is no cause for complaint because RICA contains sufficient safeguards to ensure that the designated Judge has all the facts and circumstances justifying the surveillance direction. Of course, it is simply not correct that the designated Judge is in a position to confirm the veracity of every detail furnished to her or him. [97] In the High Court the applicants argued that the ex parte process undermines the audi alteram partem (listen to the other side) principle and thus violates the right to a 54