MADLANGA J Judge are accordingly pivotal in assessing whether RICA meets the section 36 threshold. I will set out the grounds of the independence challenge later. Before dealing with this challenge, there is an issue that must be resolved first. I next focus on it. [57] This issue was not raised by any of the parties. It is that beyond the definition of “designated Judge”, nothing in the rest of RICA provides for the designation or appointment. What arises from this is whether the Minister does have the power to designate a Judge. This question was raised by this Court during argument and debated with counsel. In their affidavits and submissions – written and oral – the parties proceeded from an assumption that the Minister does have the power. They were subsequently invited by way of post-hearing directions to address this issue and its implications in supplementary written submissions. The applicants, the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Minister of Police did. All three submit that there is an implied power to designate a Judge. [58] Since this issue was not raised by the parties, can this Court consider it mero motu (of its own accord)? This Court in Director of Public Prosecutions, Transvaal83 held that a court may raise a constitutional issue84 of its own accord.85 Additionally, “[w]here a point of law is apparent on the papers, but the common approach of the parties proceeds on a wrong perception of what the law is, a court is not only entitled, but is in fact also obliged, mero motu, to raise the point of law”.86 This is rooted in the supremacy of the Constitution.87 It may turn out that the assumption from which the 83 Director of Public Prosecutions, Transvaal v Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development [2009] ZACC 8; 2009 (4) SA 222 (CC); 2009 (7) BCLR 637 (CC). 84 The vires question, i.e. whether the Minister does have the power to designate, implicates the principle of legality, a constitutional issue (see Fedsure Life Assurance Ltd v Greater Johannesburg Transitional Metropolitan Council [1998] ZACC 17; 1999 (1) SA 374 (CC); 1998 (12) BCLR 1458 (CC) (Fedsure) at para 58, read with Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of SA: In re Ex Parte President of the Republic of South Africa [2000] ZACC 1; 2000 (2) SA 674 (CC); 2000 (3) BCLR 241 (CC) (Pharmaceutical Manufacturers) at para 17, where this Court held that the principle of legality is a subset of the rule law). 85 Director of Public Prosecutions, Transvaal above n 83 at para 34. 86 CUSA v Tao Ying Metal Industries [2008] ZACC 15; 2009 (2) SA 402 (CC); 2009 (1) BCLR 1 (CC) at para 68. See also Matatiele Municipality v President of RSA [2006] ZACC 2; 2006 (5) SA 47 (CC); 2006 (5) BCLR 622 (CC) at para 67. 87 Director of Public Prosecutions, Transvaal above n 83 at para 36. 36