(a). Parliamentary committee oversight There are many ways of ensuring parliamentary oversight. These include ad-hoc parliamentary committees, plenary debates, and question and answer sessions with the responsible ministers. A generally acceptable way is establishing a parliamentary committee that ensures continuous and comprehensive oversight. (b). Clarity on the powers of institutions engaged in surveillance. Best practices insist on these powers being explicit within the law. (c). Specific sanctions for violation. Specific sanctions should be imposed for violating interception regulations. This is often meant to discourage actors from acting in their own interest, in the interest of malicious forces, or in their own malice. (e). Judicial oversight: Judicial oversight is increasingly becoming a best practice norm in the regulation of interception. In jurisdictions where judicial oversight is exercised, Interception Judges have been appointed to dis/approve applications for interception. Introduction: Thinking about privacy and interception in Zimbabwe The Zimbabwe parliament passed the Interception of Communications Act (ICA) in 2007. In 2013, the country passed a new Constitution through a public referendum, with an expanded Bill of Rights. The consultations over the ICA Bill, leading up to the enactment of the law, were acrimonious and controversial. Concerned Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) and Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) argued that the process of consultations by the parliamentary committee was superficial and window-dressing. It was not meant to accept opposing views, incorporate them and improve the bill before it became law. The