the challenges authorities have had previously in obtaining sufficient grounds to enter and collect material from media houses, for example. This is further watered down by Section 29 discussed below which allows search without warrant, based on reasonable suspicion 14 Empowers Minister Communication special of The list of which areas could be to make affected by a “threat” is too general and regulations or prone to abuse. For example “national compelling any security and defence”, “economy” are directives person/organisation too open ended and prone to arbitrary identified in the regulations application; “public order” as has been to take certain measures for the case previously is equally too the purpose of preventing or vague and could be used to suppress countering a threat individuals or organisations deemed to be critical on online spaces. 15 (4) Criminalises failure to Provides produce a record or authorities to obtain documents and document required cyber inspector by in additional means for a records from targeted individuals “in the the process of investigation”. This process of investigations could be used to obtain confidential information/sources from investigative journalists, for example without need for a warrant. A fine and/or two-year imprisonment are a threat enough. 29 Interception communication of Interception to of communication prevent without a warrant may be prone to bodily harm, loss of life or abuse by the authorities to target damage to property critical voices. While provision is made to account to a Judge after the interception is completed, the grounds on which the reasonable suspicion 24