President v Speaker (2025): The case that redefined surveillance in South Africa, and why it matters to you
Case: President of the Republic of South Africa v Speaker of the National Assembly and Others [2025] ZACC 12
Decided: 25 July 2025
Why it matters: It turned a constitutional failure into a new playbook for privacy, oversight, and trust—and if you operate in a high-compliance, data-sensitive sector, this is the shift you’ve been waiting for.
A broken system that lets surveillance run ahead of the Constitution
For years, South Africa’s surveillance law—RICA—was flawed. It allowed government interception of communications with:
- No mandatory notification to the people being watched.
- No independent judge—just one handpicked by the Minister.
- No special safeguards for journalists or lawyers.
In 2021, the Constitutional Court gave Parliament 36 months to fix it. But by 2024, the law still hadn’t changed. The system collapsed. Surveillance was frozen. And trust in the rule of law took a hit.
A judgment that put people—not power—at the centre
In July 2025, the Constitutional Court stepped back in. Not to rescue government. But to protect you—the person, the client, the organisation whose data could be surveilled.
Here’s what they ruled:
- Designated judges must be independent. Retired High Court judges, nominated by the Chief Justice—not ministers—must authorise surveillance.
- Surveillance targets must be notified. Once safe to do so, you must be told you were surveilled—within 90 days.
- Journalists and lawyers must be protected. Judges must consider whether you’re in a sensitive role. They must protect sources and legal privilege.
These interim protections now apply until Parliament finally gets it right.
So what? Here’s the pain this removes for ITLawCo clients
Uncertainty about lawful surveillance
If you’re advising executives, storing sensitive communications, or operating in fintech, healthcare, or media, you know that surveillance chills trust. This case brings legal clarity, structure, and oversight.
No more rubber-stamping state power
Clients are done with vague approvals and opaque oversight. This case reaffirms that surveillance must be earned, not assumed.
You now have a narrative advantage
In a world of perception and compliance theatre, you can show your customers and regulators that your privacy posture aligns with the highest constitutional standards, even if the law lags behind.
Why this lives in your compliance playbook, not your archive
This case is not academic. It gives you a language, a precedent, and a trust-building tool for how you monitor, investigate, or collaborate with state bodies.
If you:
- Run internal investigations
- Handle whistleblower reports
- Advise on monitoring policies
- Operate in high-risk jurisdictions
- Have journalists or lawyers as clients or staff
…then this case gives you a standard to mirror, not just a law to wait for.
Our approach at ITLawCo
At ITLawCo, we don’t just cite cases. We build systems around them.
We’ve already turned this judgment into:
- Model surveillance policies with constitutional safeguards
- Notification templates that mirror Section 25A requirements
- Data governance clauses aligned with post-surveillance duties
- Playbooks for advising boards and executives in the face of lawful intercepts
Why? Because we believe legal is a customer experience function. When done well, it builds trust. It creates leverage. It enables speed.
What’s next?
If you’re a compliance leader, general counsel, or head of risk wondering “How do we operationalise this?”, the next step is easy: Book a strategy call with us. We’ll co-design your privacy posture around what the law demands and what your clients expect.
