MADLANGA J Republic and its people. In this regard, the Minister of Police explains that the interception of communications for this purpose is part of the fulfilment of the South African Police Service’s obligation under section 205(3) of the Constitution.53 The other Ministers echo this. The Minister of Justice adds that South Africa is plagued by serious and violent crime which necessitates the adoption of measures such as RICA to detect, investigate and curb serious crimes. [30] Without question, it is crucial for the state to secure the nation, ensure that the public is safe and prevent serious crime. These are constitutional obligations.54 Through RICA, interceptions of communications have come to be central to the fulfilment of these obligations. Thus they serve an important purpose. Unsurprisingly, a number of constitutional democracies have adopted similar measures.55 This Court 53 Section 205(3) of the Constitution provides: “The objects of the police service are to prevent, combat and investigate crime, to maintain public order, to protect and secure the inhabitants of the Republic and their property, and to uphold and enforce the law.” The Minister of Police also relies on the following constitutional provisions: section 2, which enjoins the state to fulfil the obligations imposed by the Constitution; section 7(2), which imposes upon the state the obligation to respect, promote and fulfil the rights in the Bill of Rights; section 8, which provides that the Bill of Rights binds the state; section 11, which guarantees to everyone the right to life; and section 12(1)(c), which guarantees to every person the right to be free from violence. 54 Sections 198(a) and 205(3) of the Constitution. 55 A few examples are Botswana, Kenya, Canada and the United State of America. In Botswana, section 22 of the Intelligence and Security Act Chapter 2302 provides that the Directorate of Intelligence and Security – in investigating threats to national security or carrying out its functions – is authorised to “conduct an investigation of a personal or intrusive nature such as searches or interception of postal mail, electronic mail, computer or telephonic communications”. This may be done upon receipt of a warrant from a court, which will be granted if “cause” has been shown. The hearing of the application for such a warrant must take place in secret. Section 31 of the Constitution of Kenya protects the right to privacy. Interception of communications is generally a punishable offence (Article 31 of the Kenya Information and Communications Act 1 of 2009). However, the right to privacy may be limited in certain instances. For example, section 36 of the National Intelligence Service (NIS) Act 28 of 2012 allows the NIS to investigate, monitor or interfere with a person’s communications, where that person is suspected to have committed an offence. The Prevention of Terrorism Act 30 of 2012 permits the investigation, interception and interference with a person’s communications in the course of investigating, detecting or preventing a terrorist act. In Canada, Part VI of the Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46 sets out the framework for law enforcement to obtain judicial authorisation to conduct electronic surveillance for criminal investigations – though only for certain serious offences and subject to the requirements of exhausting alternative investigative procedures and furthering the best interests of the administration of justice (sections 183-6). Likewise in the United States, the Federal electronic surveillance statutes (commonly referred to collectively as “Title III” and codified at 18 U.S.C. § 2510, et seq) allow for interception of electronic communications to investigate any Federal felony (18 U.S.C. § 2516(3)), subject to restrictions including the requirement that the Department of Justice approves such use prior to even obtaining a court order authorising interception. Notably 23