Uwazi

4.4.4.

In this regard the Interception of Communications Act may borrow heavily
from the South African Regulation of Interception of Communications Act as
well as the law of Trinidad and Tobago;

4.4.5.

Notable regulation of interception provisions are the use of judges as
opposed to public officials of the Executive arm of government;

4.4.6.

In aiding the regulation of interception of communications, it may also be
advisable to incorporate an independent monitoring authority as is the case in
the United Kingdom and Hong Kong;

4.5.

Authority to intercept communications
4.5.1.

The vesting of the power to authorize the interception of communications
in the Minister responsible for the administration of the Act is both undesirable
and problematic;

4.5.2.

It is undesirable because it flies in the face of the constitutional doctrine of
separation of powers;

4.5.3.

It is problematic because it creates a situation where the law enforcement
agents, part of the executive arm of government, apply to their superior within
the executive branch to carry out an executive assignment;

4.5.4.

Judicial oversight regarding the constitutionality and other legality of the
warrant is completely missing as the executive is not charged with the
interpretation of legal rights relative to executive administrative conduct;

4.5.5.

The right to the protection of the law, here read in part to mean the right to
privacy, is completely negated by this arrangement and is only left to the tail
end of a possible appeal to the Administrative Court of Zimbabwe way after
damage has already been done;

4.5.6.

The ideal situation is one where the authority to intercept is applied to and
adjudicated upon by a judicial officer in the first instance;

4.5.7.

In the Republic of South Africa, where the relevant Act provides for the
appointment of a ‘designated judge’ by the Minister for purposes of
adjudicating applications for interception warrants and or directives, the High
Court has recently ruled that even the ‘designated judge’ appointed as he or
she is by a minister is a violation of the Constitution and a proposal has been