HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE LIMITS OF STATE POWER IN SOUTHERN AFRICA: A SOUTH AFRICAN PERSPECTIVE ON DIGITAL PRIVACY, DUE PROCESS, AND EFFECTIVE POLICING

Authored By: Angie Makhadzi Tshitereke

University of South Africa

Introduction

Human rights are not merely aspirational principles in South Africa; they work as enforceable constraints on state power and as standards for fair governance. In criminal justice, the state’s interest in investigating and prosecuting crime must be balanced against rights to dignity, privacy, and a fair trial. This balance is particularly difficult in the context of modern policing, where investigative methods increasingly involve digital devices, data extraction, surveillance technologies, and forensic processing of computers and mobile phones. Digital evidence can be highly probative, but it is also uniquely intrusive because it reveals intimate information, communication histories, location trails, and behavioural patterns, often beyond what is strictly necessary for a specific investigation.

his article argues that South African constitutional law already provides robust tools for balancing effective policing with human rights protection. However, the framework can only function well if courts apply it in a structured and predictable manner—particularly through careful constitutional scrutiny of invasive investigative steps and by ensuring that remedies and evidentiary consequences promote fairness and systemic legitimacy. The human-rights value of legality and proportionality is not an obstacle to justice; it supports the reliability of outcomes and the credibility of the criminal justice system.

The article focuses on (1) privacy and its constitutional meaning for digital investigations, (2) fair trial requirements relevant to the use of rights-sensitive evidence, (3) the proportionality logic of section 36 of the Constitution, and (4) the importance of coherent remedies when rights are violated.

Constitutional and statutory framework for rights-based policing

2.1 Privacy: section 14 and the significance of informational power

Section 14 of the Constitution guarantees the right to privacy ¹. Privacy is constitutionally protected not only in relation to physical intrusions but also in respect of informational control—how personal data is collected, stored, accessed, and showed. In the digital context, a device search can open an expansive window into a person’s life. Even if an investigation is aimed at a particular offence, the technical ability to access whole-device data increases the risk that the state will collect far more information than is necessary.

South African constitutional jurisprudence has recognised that privacy includes an individual’s interest in controlling personal information and resisting intrusive state or private interference ². This matters because digital searches are often characterised by broad informational access. Consequently, privacy analysis must be sensitive to the scale and intensity of the intrusion, the likelihood of sensitive data being accessed, and whether safeguards limit the intrusion to what is justified.

2.2 Fair trial rights: section 35 and evidence integrity

Section 35(3) guarantees an accused’s right to a fair trial, including rights related to legal representation, disclosure, and the overall fairness of proceedings ³. While fair trial rights do not automatically equate to the automatic “exclusion” of all unlawfully obtained evidence, they require that proceedings be still legitimate, fair, and reliable. Where evidence is obtained through rights-violating conduct, the risk is not only that evidence may be unreliable, but that the defence’s ability to challenge the evidence is impaired and equality of arms is disrupted.

The fair trial inquiry thus interacts with legality and remedy. If constitutional breaches undermine the process in a significant way, courts must consider whether the admission of evidence would make the trial unfair in a substantive sense.

2.3 Limitations and proportionality: section 36

The Constitution recognises that rights may be limited by law, but only if limitations are reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality, and freedom ⁴. Section 36 requires a proportionality assessment. In practice, this means courts must consider: the purpose of the limitation, its rational connection to the purpose, whether there are less restrictive means, and whether the benefits outweigh the harm to the right ⁵.

In digital investigations, proportionality is especially important because the state often has access to multiple investigative options with diverse levels of intrusiveness (e.g., targeted extraction versus full device copying; narrow time windows versus broad historical capture) Section 36 therefore functions as a constitutional discipline that prevents investigative “mission creepers “

2.4 Criminal procedure and legality

Criminal investigations are regulated through statute and procedural law, including the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977.⁶ Even when police have practical investigative capacity, they must act within lawful authorisation and follow constitutional requirements. Human rights protection becomes concrete through lawful procedures: warrants must be properly grounded, searches must match the scope justified by the authorisation, and evidence obtained must be handled in ways that preserve fairness.

Human-rights balancing in digital and cyber-related investigations

3.1 Why digital searches are different

Digital searches are constitutionally sensitive for at least four reasons:

High informational density: a phone or computer holds vast amounts of personal information.
Unpredictable exposure: police may meet data unrelated to the investigation.
Secondary use risk: once access is obtained, the temptation to use “incidental” information increases.
Forensic opacity: digital extraction and analysis can be complex, making it difficult for a defence to meaningfully contest reliability without proper disclosure and expert support.

3.2 The proportionality approach courts should apply

A rights-consistent approach to digital intrusions should require:

– Legitimate aim: the investigation must pursue a genuine public interest (e.g., investigation of serious crime).

– Rational connection: there must be a logical link between the intrusion and the investigative goal.

– Necessity/least restrictive means: the state must show why less intrusive alternatives are not adequate.

– Scope and time limitation: warrants or authorisations must specify what is looked for and within what boundaries.

–Procedural safeguards and oversight: judicial control and clear procedural steps reduce the risk of abuse.

–Minimisation: where possible, data access should be limited to what is necessary.

Constitutional jurisprudence and human-rights principles relevant to evidence use

4.1 Privacy in constitutional meaning: Bernstein v Bester

In Bernstein v Bester the Constitutional Court recognised that privacy protects informational autonomy and that constitutional scrutiny must account for how the state exercises power through information ⁷. Although the case arose in a different context, it supports an important interpretive principle for digital investigations: privacy is about human dignity and autonomy, not merely about physical space. Where digital tools allow extensive personal data access, privacy interests intensify.

4.2 Proportionality and dignity: S v Makwanyane

While S v Makwanyane concerns the death penalty, it stays foundational for South Africa’s constitutional values and proportionality logic ⁸. The case reinforces that human dignity is central to constitutional reasoning, and that state power cannot be justified by utilitarian goals alone. In the policing context, this principle implies that effectiveness cannot automatically justify invasive methods. Rights limitations must be genuine, justified, and proportionate.

4.3 Fair trial values and remedy: systemic legitimacy

Constitutional jurisprudence repeatedly emphasises that rights breaches require meaningful remedies. The point is not only to compensate the accused, but to uphold constitutional supremacy, deter unlawful conduct, and keep public confidence in judicial integrity. In criminal cases, the remedy question becomes particularly acute where evidence is central to the prosecution. If courts apply remedies inconsistently, investigative authorities may face unclear consequences, undermining the rule-of-law function of constitutional rights.

While South African courts often avoid adopting rigid automatic exclusionary rules, they nonetheless insist on fairness and integrity. Thus, courts should consider the gravity of the breach, the extent to which the breach affected the defence, and whether admitting the evidence would make the trial unfair in a substantive sense.

Implications for human-rights policing in Southern Africa

Although this article is South Africa-focused, the human-rights lessons have relevance across Southeast Africa because many countries face similar tensions: increasing cybercrime, limited forensic resources, and pressure on police to secure convictions. Constitutional governance offers an answer: if legal standards for intrusive measures are clear, investigations can be both effective and rights consistent. Rights compliance can improve investigative credibility and reduce the risk of acquittals due to evidence challenges.

Conclusion

Digital and cyber-related investigations raise heightened human-rights concerns because they involve intrusive access to highly personal information and because digital evidence processes can be technically complex. South African law provides constitutional tools—privacy (s 14), fair trial (s 35), and proportionality (s 36)—that can guide courts in assessing whether invasive investigative steps are justified and how rights breaches should affect trial fairness and remedy.

The central argument is that South African courts should apply a structured proportionality analysis to digital intrusions and should ensure remedial outcomes preserve trial fairness and systemic legitimacy. In this way, constitutional rights protection supports not only dignity and autonomy but also the reliability and credibility of criminal justice in South Africa and beyond.

Reference(S):