3.3.3. The South African law has been undergoing considerable revision efforts which may lead to a complete overhaul of the entire RICA if sentiments placed on record in the High Court and Parliament are anything to go by; 3.3.4. More importantly, and as recently as 16th September 2019, a South African Court condemned and struck down or otherwise amended key provisions of the RICA more particularly as follows: 3.3.4.1. Where the Act did not provide for post – interception notice to data subjects, the Court found such provisions to be inconsistent with the South African Constitution by failing to provide adequate safeguards against abuse and to prevent the possibility of data subjects never ever being able to know that they had been the subjects of information interception;[34] 3.3.4.2. Where the Act provides for the appointment of a designated judge by the Minister, the Court retained that power but with the qualification that “however, the appointees should be nominated by the Chief Justice and the Minister should be obliged to accept the nominations.”[35] 3.3.4.3. The Court declined to rule in favour of a prayer to introduce the institution of a public advocate to act as a further safeguard in applications for interception warrants as part of the adversarial system of litigation. Whilst noting that such an institution may be a safeguard given the ex parte nature of all applications for interception it was content to declare the relevant provision as ultra vires the Constitution but without prescribing the manner of curing the defect and left it to the legislature to do so in within two years of its order; [36] 3.3.4.4. The Court declined to outlaw the provisions regarding archiving and storage of intercepted information and contented itself with ordering a revision of the weak safety measures regarding the control, access to and dissemination of such stored information in the following terms: “(1) RICA, especially sections 35 and 37, are inconsistent with the Constitution and accordingly invalid to the extent that the statute, itself, fails to prescribe proper procedures