MADLANGA J [77] Also, in accordance with the maxim ut res magis valeat quam pereat,110 rather than render RICA virtually inoperable as a result of a perceived lack of power to designate, an interpretation that finds a power to designate a Judge in section 1, read with the other provisions I have referred to, commends itself. The maxim may be a useful tool of interpretation. And it is here. In Hess the Court held that, in terms of this maxim, “[w]here the meaning of a section in a law is uncertain or ambiguous it is the duty of the Court to consider the law as a whole, and compare the various sections with each other and with the preamble, and give such meaning to the particular section under consideration that it may, if possible, have force and effect”.111 The reading I am advocating is quite viable. Hoexter – albeit in the context of necessary ancillary powers – argues that “[t]here is a very strong argument in favour of implying a power if the main purpose of the statute cannot be achieved without it”.112 [78] If there is no power to designate, no Judge can be designated lawfully. On the Fedsure113 and Pharmaceutical Manufacturers114 principle, it would be unconstitutional for the Minister to designate. As the role of the designated Judge is key to RICA surveillance, the lack of the power to designate hollows the Act out and leaves it bereft of meaningful operability. Take the designated Judge out of the picture, directions under sections 16 to 18 and 21 and 23, extensions and amendments of these directions under section 20 and entry warrants under section 22 cannot be issued. The only directions that can still be issued are archived communication-related directions under section 19. And those are issued, not by a designated Judge, but by a High Court Directly translated “the thing may avail (or be valid) rather than perish” (Claassen’s Dictionary of Legal Words and Phrases). A less literal meaning is that an instrument must be interpreted such that it is given some meaning rather than rendered nugatory. 110 111 H Hess v The State (1985) 2 Off Rep 112 at 117. 112 Hoexter above n 99 at 45. Fedsure above n 84 at paras 58-9. This Court held “[i]t seems central to the conception of our constitutional order that the Legislature and Executive in every sphere are constrained by the principle that they may exercise no power and perform no function beyond that conferred upon them by law”. As a result, the common law principles of ultra vires are underpinned by the constitutional principle of legality. 113 Pharmaceutical Manufacturers above n 84 at para 20, where this Court held “[t]he exercise of all public power must comply with the Constitution which is the supreme law, and the doctrine of legality which is part of that law”. 114 45