MADLANGA J [125] The question before us is this: is there a legal basis for the state to conduct bulk communications surveillance? Before answering this question, we must determine whether the appeal in relation thereto is properly before us. Appeal by Minister of State Security [126] The Minister of State Security has filed a notice of appeal that was not accompanied by an application for leave to appeal directly to this Court in respect of the order relating to bulk surveillance. For that reason, the applicants argue that this part of the appeal is fatally defective. That is so because – continues the argument – the High Court order relating to this part of the appeal does not involve any declaration of a statute invalid. Rather, what the High Court did was to declare unlawful bulk surveillance conducted by state agencies in the absence of a law authorising it. It is only in respect of the issues on which the applicants are seeking confirmation that the Minister of State Security had an automatic right of appeal.157 The bulk surveillance issue is not one of those issues. The Minister ought to have sought leave from this Court in terms of rule 19.158 Lastly, the applicants submit that the Minister of State Security has not explained why it is in the interests of justice for a direct appeal to be heard. [127] The applicants are correct to submit that the Minister of State Security ought to have sought leave to appeal. But in terms of section 173 of the Constitution, this Court is at liberty to determine its own process. A pragmatic approach is to entertain the appeal. The issue it raises was part of the same proceedings before the High Court. Determining it together with the confirmation proceedings will contribute towards a 157 Section 15(1)(a) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013 provides: “Whenever the Supreme Court of Appeal, a Division of the High Court or any competent court declares an Act of Parliament, a provincial Act or conduct of the President invalid as contemplated in section 172 (2) (a) of the Constitution, that court must, in accordance with the rules, refer the order of constitutional invalidity to the Constitutional Court for confirmation.” 158 Rule 19 provides: “[A] litigant who is aggrieved by the decision of a court and who wishes to appeal against it directly to the court on a constitutional matter shall, within 15 days of the order against which the appeal is sought to be brought and after giving notice to the other party or parties concerned, lodge with the registrar an application for leave to appeal: provided that where the President has refused leave to appeal the period prescribed in this rule shall run from the date of the order refusing leave.” 66