Recent Reports on Mass Surveillance Spark Debate Over Privacy and Security

In a small country like Mauritius, privacy is highly valued. While conversations within homes are protected, what about digital exchanges? Recent reports about global mass surveillance practices have renewed concerns about wiretapping and intercepting electronic communications.

These issues are discussed in the latest newsletter from the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), published this Friday 30th May.

Mass surveillance involves collecting data such as phone calls, online activity, location information, or biometric data.

While this can help prevent terrorism and serious crimes, it also poses a risk to privacy if not properly regulated by law.

In Mauritius, the Constitution protects privacy rights through Articles 3(c) and 9(1), which guarantee the confidentiality of the home and prohibit unwarranted searches or intrusions.

However, these rights are not absolute. They can be limited for reasons of public order or to protect others’ rights, provided such restrictions are justified in a democratic society.

Unlike the European Convention on Human Rights, the Mauritian Constitution does not explicitly mention “privacy.” Instead, privacy is addressed in the Civil Code (Article 22).

Court rulings, like the 2018 Madhewoo v State case, have expanded legal protections to include physical and psychological integrity, which European jurisprudence also considers to include social identity.

This suggests that private communications — whether physical or digital — should be equally protected.

Targeted Surveillance

Mauritian laws do allow some forms of targeted surveillance, but only under specific circumstances and with judicial approval. For example:

• The Financial Crimes Commission Act (Article 65)
• The Prevention of Terrorism Act (Article 25A)
• The Cybersecurity and Cybercrime Act (Articles 29 and 30)

In all cases, interception of communications in real-time requires a judge’s prior authorization.

An exception exists in Article 32(5) of the ICTA, which permits operators to intercept messages deemed indecent or a threat to public safety without judicial approval.

This exception is controversial because it conflicts with constitutional protections.

Illegal interception of communications is heavily penalized. For instance:

• Under Article 46(1)(n) of the ICTA, unauthorized disclosure of electronic communications can lead to up to ten years in prison.
• The Cybersecurity and Cybercrime Act (Article 8) imposes penalties of up to twenty years for unauthorized interception.

While some countries have legalized mass surveillance under strict conditions—such as necessity, proportionality, and independent oversight—Mauritius’s current laws rely on targeted measures with judicial oversight. This approach seeks to balance public security with individual freedoms.

Without clear legal backing, widespread surveillance would be considered an illegal violation of the fundamental right to privacy.

This summary is based on the DPP’s bulletin, written by Urshita Seebarruth, Temporary State Counsel.

Source: Defi Media