MADLANGA J [48] Reverting to South Africa, none of the respondents proffered any cogent reason why there should never be post-surveillance notification. And they could not have been able to. I say so because I just cannot conceive of any legitimate reason why the state would want to keep the fact of past surveillance a secret in perpetuity. “[A]s soon as notification can be made without jeopardising the purpose of the surveillance after its termination”,78 just why would the state want to keep the fact of surveillance secret? This, of course, is not about those instances where – for a while perhaps – the state may be able to justify why it would be injurious to its interest prematurely to give notification. I am thus led to the conclusion that post-surveillance notification should be the default position, which should be departed from only where, on the facts of that case, the state organ persuades the designated Judge that such departure is justified. And RICA is unconstitutional to the extent that it fails to provide for it. This conclusion is buttressed by the fact that at present the infringement is such as to implicate the rights of access to courts79 and to an appropriate remedy.80 Automatic review [49] Plainly, RICA applies to all citizens; the influential and the barely noticed, the well-resourced and the deprived, the well-placed in society and the marginalised, those who can stand and fight for themselves and those who – because of all manner of deprivation – are susceptible to abuse. In South Africa, the vast majority of people cannot afford to litigate where they have suffered the infringement of their rights at the hands of the state. For many, therefore, post-surveillance notification will not translate to the vindication of their privacy rights through the exercise of the right of access to court. As a result of financial want, exercising the right will be an impossibility. It seems to me what could give this vulnerable group of South Africans a fair chance of also being in a position to vindicate their privacy right would be if they were to be afforded relatively inexpensive, speedy and effective access to judicial review. This 78 The Bulgarian case id at para 90. 79 Section 34 of the Constitution. 80 Section 38 of the Constitution. 33