MADLANGA J / JAFTA J “Section 25A Post-surveillance notification (1) Within 90 days of the date of expiry of a direction or extension thereof issued in terms of sections 16, 17, 18, 20, 21 or 23, whichever is applicable, the applicant that obtained the direction or, if not available, any other law enforcement officer within the law enforcement agency concerned must notify in writing the person who was the subject of the direction and, within 15 days of doing so, certify in writing to the designated Judge, Judge of a High Court, Regional Court Magistrate or Magistrate that the person has been so notified. (2) If the notification referred to in subsection (1) cannot be given without jeopardising the purpose of the surveillance, the designated Judge, Judge of a High Court, Regional Court Magistrate or Magistrate may, upon application by a law enforcement officer, direct that the giving of notification in that subsection be withheld for a period which shall not exceed 90 days at a time or two years in aggregate. 9. The Minister of Police and the Minister of State Security must pay the applicants’ costs in this Court, including the costs of two counsel. JAFTA J (Mogoeng CJ concurring) [158] I have had the benefit of reading the judgment prepared by my colleague Madlanga J (first judgment). I agree with much of what is contained in the first judgment, except its conclusion on whether RICA empowers the Minister of Justice to designate a Judge for the purposes of RICA. I am not persuaded that RICA 6