Only a judge, contacted by the police, can authorize telephone tapping. This authorization, called “Judge’s order“, is only granted after careful examination of the motivated request by the police. Any interception of communications without this court order is illegal. This is what Me Taij Dabycharun makes clear, in reaction to the alleged cases of phone tapping and the broadcast of audio tapes on social networks, including Facebook.
Do telephone conversations pass through secure channels? “Yes, normally,” replies Mr. Taij Dabycharun. Operators are responsible for securing communication lines. “However, they hold the keys to access this data and are therefore responsible for their protection,” he specifies.
For the lawyer, this matter is “very serious” and arouses deep indignation. The publication of these recordings, involving personalities from all walks of life, constitutes a serious attack on the right to privacy, he points out: “A thorough investigation is necessary to determine the authenticity of these audio tapes, identify those responsible for this leak and establish the exact circumstances of this invasion of privacy. »
The international repercussions of this affair are inevitable, adds the lawyer: “The image of our country has been seriously damaged, giving rise to a negative perception abroad. » These leaks, which damage the reputation of Mauritius, according to him, are all the more worrying as they recall an issue already raised in 2016 in Parliament. “The recurrence of these illegal practices confirms the existence of a telephone tapping system in Mauritius”, undermining individual freedoms and compromising the rule of law.
The different articles of law on “phone tapping”
- Section 32(6) (a) of the Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) Act 2001 states that only the police can make a request for a “judge’s order” to authorize a public operator or its agents to intercept, prevent communication and reveal information from the use of telecommunications networks.
- Section 32 (6) (b) of the ICT Act 2001 states that the judge will not issue this type of order automatically on application. The application made by the police must satisfy the judge that the requested information (phone tapping) is materially connected to a criminal case.
- According to Article 32(5), an operator can also intercept messages that are indecent or abusive, or even that could compromise national security or public order, while reporting the matter to the relevant authority.
- Section 46 (ga) of the ICT Act: Any person using telecommunications or other equipment to send, transmit or disseminate an obscene, abusive, misleading message likely to provoke or harm any person commits an offence.
- Article 46 (ha) of the ICT Act: Any person who uses a means of telecommunications or any other means to usurp the identity of another person likely to cause harm to that person commits an offense.
- Section 47 of the ICT Act: Any person who commits an offense under this Act shall be liable to a fine not exceeding Rs 1,000,000 and to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.
