Section 4 of RICA: The big brother constant and the admissibility of secret recordings

COVID-19 has definitively altered the workplace and has accelerated a changing work order. Never before have employers had to manage their workplaces as delicately as under the current circumstances, which has forced the world of work to become largely remote. The advent of technological advances has been imperative in this regard; “Zoom” and “Microsoft Teams” may be 2020’s greatest contribution to our common vocabulary. An intuitive question to ask in this environment is: what are the limits of this technology in a constitutional democracy and in the employer-employee trust relationship? Zoom, Microsoft Teams and our smart devices are all equipped with recording capabilities. Is secretly recording colleagues or employees legally permissible? Does the secret recording of employees or colleagues constitute admissible evidence in court proceedings?

5 Oct 2020 6 min read Employment Law Alert Article

In S v Kidson 1999 (1) SACR 338 (W), the court was called upon to determine whether the secret recording of a communication between an accomplice to a murder and the accused constituted admissible evidence in a criminal trial. The court made a distinction between ‘third party monitoring’ (monitoring by those who are not party to the conversation) and participant monitoring (monitoring by a party to the conversation). The court held that the interception of a call where one is a party does not constitute “third party monitoring” as it would be flawed to say that one is eavesdropping on one’s own conversation. The court therefore confirmed that secret recordings of conversations where they constitute “participant monitoring” is admissible as evidence in court proceedings.

This position was later codified in the Regulation of Interception of Communications and Provision of Communication-Related Information Act 70 of 2002 (RICA). Section 4(1) of RICA provides –

Any person, other than a law enforcement officer, may intercept any communication if he or she is a party to the communication, unless such communication is intercepted by such person for the purposes of committing an offence.

Furthermore, in terms of section 1 of RICA, a “party to the communication” includes a person who might be listening, but not actively participating in the communication.

It is evident from section 4 of RICA that parties to communication may record such communication, with or without the consent of the other parties, provided that the recording is not intended to be used in the commission of an offence. Therefore, subject the proviso contained in section 4 of RICA, the recording of Zoom or Microsoft Teams meetings and the like is permitted, where one is a party to the meeting or conversation, irrespective of whether one has informed the other parties of such recording and whether one is actively participating in the communication.

In addition to section 4 of RICA which allows for the secret recording of communication by a party thereto, RICA also provides for instances of interception by non-parties to communication. One such section is section 16 of RICA in terms of which an applicant may make application to a designated judge for an interception direction. The section provides for a judge to make an interception direction in terms of which a party may intercept communication, subject to certain conditions, without the knowledge or consent of the person whose communication is to be intercepted. The constitutionality of section 16 of RICA was the subject matter of the recent decision of Amabhungane Centre for Investigative Journalism NPC and Another v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Others 2020 (1) SA 90 (GP). In the aforesaid judgment, the Pretoria High Court was called upon to decide the constitutionality of several of South Africa’s surveillance schemes including and particularly certain sections of RICA, specifically section 16 thereof. The case related to an application made pursuant to an investigative journalist becoming aware that his communications had been intercepted when a lawyer referred to transcripts of his communications in unrelated legal proceedings. The applicant then approached the court challenging the constitutionality of RICA on, inter alia, its failure to provide notice of surveillance; the lack of sufficient safeguards in relation to the safety and custody of information gathered by way of surveillance and the preservation of the confidentiality of sources of investigative journalists.

The court emphasised the constitutional requirement to limit the right to privacy in the least intrusive way and highlighted the need to safeguard the media’s right to freedom of expression by ensuring protection of the confidentiality of sources. The court held that it was common cause that RICA violated the right to privacy as enshrined in section 14 of the Constitution. The court then sought to determine whether such violation was justifiable in terms of section 36 of the Constitution. The court ruled that RICA was unconstitutional to the extent that it did not allow for post-surveillance notification (section 16(7)(a) of RICA), that the current appointment system of the designated judge did not ensure their independence in ex part interception applications (with reference to the definition of designated judge in section 1 of RICA), and that RICA did not require the applying agency to inform the judge that the subject of surveillance was a lawyer or a journalist (section 16 of RICA). The court gave parliament two years to remedy the deficiencies. The ruling further declared that bulk surveillance is unconstitutional. The matter has been referred to the constitutional court to confirm the order of constitutional invalidity as is required by the Constitution and we await the judgment in this regard.

This judgment of Amabhungane Centre for Investigative Journalism NPC and Another v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Others should not be viewed as invalidating RICA in its entirety, neither was section 4 of RICA the subject matter of the case. Notwithstanding, it remains important to bear in mind the constitutional right to privacy when secretly recording a communication as there may come a time when section 4 of RICA comes under constitutional scrutiny.

In the employment context however, this issue requires consideration of the tension between the right of any person to record a conversation (provided that such person is a party to and has not objected to the recording) and the principle that an employment relationship is based on an implicit trust relationship between an employer and an employee as well as the robust level of communication which takes place at an executive level.

RICA provides for a single party to monitor or record direct communications; this means that an employee may legally intercept or record any communication with his employer, manager, direct supervisor, HR manager or other person in a position of authority at the workplace if the employee is a party to the communication.

On the other hand, since the employment relationship is built on trust, secretly recording your employer without their knowledge or consent, even if this is legal in terms of RICA, may be problematic for the ongoing employment relationship, particularly where the conversation pertains to confidential information of the business. Privacy and confidentiality issues in communication are layered and complex and employees must still bear in mind their confidentiality obligations when seeking to use secret recordings in legal proceedings.

Similarly, despite section 4 of RICA clarifying that employers may, in appropriate circumstances, secretly record communication with employees, the uncertainty as to whether communication is being recorded may erode robust communication in the workplace that may be necessary for the growth and development of businesses. While the secret recording of communication by parties thereto may be permissible, in doing so an employer runs the risk of corroding an open and honest communication work culture which may positively contribute to the running of their organisations.

In order to deal with this, employers must take a robust approach and ensure that the requisite policies are in place related to the recording of communication. In order to ensure complications associated with secret recordings are mitigated, particularly in the current flexible, changing work environment, policies pertaining to electronic communication more broadly and specifically provisions related to the recording of workplace meetings or discussions must be crafted in accordance with the needs of each business.

The information and material published on this website is provided for general purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. We make every effort to ensure that the content is updated regularly and to offer the most current and accurate information. Please consult one of our lawyers on any specific legal problem or matter. We accept no responsibility for any loss or damage, whether direct or consequential, which may arise from reliance on the information contained in these pages. Please refer to our full terms and conditions. Copyright © 2024 Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr. All rights reserved. For permission to reproduce an article or publication, please contact us