MADLANGA J broadly to include oral conversations, email and mobile phone communications (including data, text and visual images) that are transmitted through a postal service or telecommunication system.16 [8] Without a “designated Judge”17 RICA would be substantially inoperable. With the exception of only one type, at the centre of all surveillance directions issued under RICA is a designated Judge; she or he must authorise all directions that fall within the purview of functions of a designated Judge. These directions are provided for in sections 16 to 18, 21 and 23. Explaining briefly what each of these sections is about, section 16 provides for “interception directions”.18 These are directions for the 16 Section 1 of RICA. 17 The term “designated Judge” is defined in section 1 of RICA. I deal with the concept later. 18 Section 16(5) of RICA provides: “(5) An interception direction may only be issued if the designated Judge concerned is satisfied, on the facts alleged in the application concerned, that— (a) there are reasonable grounds to believe that— (i) a serious offence has been or is being or will probably be committed; (ii) the gathering of information concerning an actual threat to the public health or safety, national security or compelling national economic interests of the Republic is necessary; (iii) the gathering of information concerning a potential threat to the public health or safety or national security of the Republic is necessary; (iv) the making of a request for the provision, or the provision to the competent authorities of a country or territory outside the Republic, of any assistance in connection with, or in the form of, the interception of communications relating to organised crime or any offence relating to terrorism or the gathering of information relating to organised crime or terrorism, is in— (aa) accordance with an international mutual assistance agreement; or (bb) the interests of the Republic’s international relations or obligations; or (v) (b) the gathering of information concerning property which is or could probably be an instrumentality of a serious offence or is or could probably be the proceeds of unlawful activities is necessary; there are reasonable grounds to believe that— (i) the interception of particular communications concerning the relevant ground referred to in paragraph (a) will be obtained by means of such an interception direction; and 12