(d). The abrogation of the State’s responsibility to protect. The primary responsibility of the State is to protect. The way the ICA is crafted makes it inevitable for the state to abrogate its responsibility to protect. This needs urgent reform in order to make the state responsive to its natural role of protecting citizens. The ICA, in its current form shirks away this responsibility because the State, instead of protecting citizens, exposes them to unmitigated surveillance. Yet, the obligation to protect binds under Section 2(2), ‘every person, natural or juristic, including the State and all executive, legislative and judicial institutions and agencies of government at every level, and must be fulfilled by them’2 . Therefore, the ICA needs to be recrafted to address this glaring inevitability. Additional recommendations. ICA should be amended to reflect the following: (a) Judicial oversight (b) Effective parliamentary oversight. (c) Protection and proper disposition of intercepted communication. Currently, the law is silent about this. (d) Post-surveillance notification is an important practice - where targets are informed post-fact for transparency. Practical actions that should be considered immediately ● ICA should expressly affirm the rights of data subjects. In its current form, it is too broad in its inclusion of targets and has a chilling effect on journalism and law. ● There is an urgent need for a supervisory authority whose role and responsibilities are included in the law and guaranteed. 2 Ibid at section 2(2).