In the Shadows of Mass Surveillance

Editorial

The recent revelations in the Parliament regarding the extensive surveillance of communications since 2017 have sent shockwaves through the nation. Prime Minister Navin Ramgoolam’s confirmation of illegal wiretapping and digital espionage exposes a sophisticated system of mass surveillance that allegedly began when Pravind Jugnauth assumed the office of Prime Minister. According to preliminary audits conducted by US experts, a high-tech interception system known as PertSol was deployed to monitor phone calls, internet traffic, and social media communications. The intercepted data, including Facebook, TikTok, WhatsApp, Signal, and email exchanges, was reportedly stored, analyzed, and potentially exploited without judicial oversight or independent control. These revelations not only raise concerns about privacy violations but also cast serious doubts on the ethical and legal framework governing Mauritius’ intelligence and law enforcement agencies.

The root of the surveillance

The roots of this mass surveillance operation trace back to 2017, when the then-government, led by the Mouvement Socialiste Militant (MSM), procured an advanced surveillance system from the Israeli firm VERINT. This system enabled large-scale interception of telephone calls and internet traffic, granting the authorities unprecedented access to private communications. In 2022, another batch of surveillance equipment was reportedly acquired, further expanding the then government’s monitoring capabilities. According to reports, these devices were deployed across major telecom operators in Mauritius, allowing direct access for the Counter Terrorism Unit (CTU) and the National Security Services (NSS). Despite being installed on telecommunications infrastructure, these tools remained under the exclusive control of intelligence agencies, operating without transparent regulatory oversight. Such an extensive surveillance mechanism raises alarming questions about how this information was used and who had access to it.

What makes these revelations even more troubling is the timing of data destruction. As per the findings of international experts working with the Mauritius Police Force, a significant amount of intercepted information was wiped from government servers immediately after the 2019 general elections. This suspiciously timed data destruction has led to speculations about the true intent behind the surveillance. Was it purely for national security, or did it serve political interests? Were opposition figures, journalists, and activists targeted to influence elections or suppress dissent?

The lack of transparency surrounding the deletion of this data only deepens suspicions about the troubling intentions of those who initiated the surveillance system. If the surveillance program was genuinely designed to counter threats such as terrorism and cybercrime, why were the records erased at such a critical political juncture? The failure to provide clear answers to these questions erodes trust in state institutions and undermines the credibility of Mauritius as a democracy that upholds the rule of law.

Global parallels: The Italian spyware scandal

This situation in Mauritius is eerily reminiscent of global spyware controversies, most recently involving the Israeli firm Paragon and its surveillance tool, Graphite (See Spotlights Page 12). Paragon, known for working exclusively with state entities like the FBI and the Israeli security establishment, recently terminated its contracts with Italy after allegations surfaced that its spyware was used to target government critics, journalists, and civil society activists.

Reports indicate that nearly 100 individuals had their encrypted smartphone data breached, including vocal critics of the far-right government led by Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni. This misuse of surveillance technology led Paragon’s new American owners to sever ties with their Italian clients, citing violations of ethical and legal agreements.

The Paragon case, along with the infamous Pegasus spyware scandal, highlights a growing global trend where governments misuse surveillance technology under the guise of national security. Pegasus, developed by the Israeli firm NSO Group, was allegedly used by multiple governments worldwide to spy on journalists, human rights activists, and opposition leaders. Although NSO has consistently maintained that its software is intended only for counterterrorism and criminal investigations, the evidence suggests that authoritarian regimes have leveraged such tools for political repression.

The Broader Implications for Mauritius

The striking similarities between Mauritius’ surveillance scandal and these global cases underscore a fundamental question: How can a democracy protect national security while preserving civil liberties? The use of sophisticated surveillance tools in Mauritius, without oversight or accountability, risks turning the country into a surveillance state where citizens’ rights are systematically violated.

This crisis also raises pressing concerns about data security and sovereignty. If Mauritius acquired its surveillance technology from foreign firms, does this mean that sensitive information about its citizens could have been accessed by foreign intelligence agencies? The potential for such breaches underscores the need for stringent regulations governing data protection and state surveillance.

To rebuild public trust and safeguard democratic values, it is crucial for Mauritius to urgently implement the following measures:

First, a transparent and independent commission should be established to investigate the full extent of illegal surveillance, determine accountability, and recommend corrective measures.

Second, Parliament must enact stronger data protection and privacy laws to prevent any future abuse of surveillance technology. Intelligence agencies should operate within a strict legal framework with judicial oversight.

Third, as regards technological safeguards, telecommunication providers must be required to implement stronger encryption protocols and privacy safeguards to prevent unauthorized interception of communications.

Fourth, individuals responsible for the illegal surveillance and data destruction should be held accountable through legal and institutional actions. This includes both political figures and intelligence officials who orchestrated or facilitated the surveillance operations.

Fifth, civil society organizations and legal experts must play an active role in holding the government accountable and advocating for digital rights protections.

The mass surveillance revelations represent a defining moment in Mauritius’ democratic history. The country must now decide whether it will uphold the fundamental principles of freedom, privacy, and human rights, or continue down a path of unchecked state power and digital authoritarianism.

The global lessons from cases like Pegasus and Graphite demonstrate that once surveillance infrastructure is misused, it becomes nearly impossible to reverse its consequences. Mauritius stands at a crossroads: either it chooses transparency, accountability, and reform, or it risks further erosion of democratic institutions and civil liberties. The citizens of Mauritius deserve answers, and more importantly, they deserve the right to communicate freely without fear of government intrusion.

Only time will tell whether these revelations will lead to meaningful change. But one thing is certain: democracy cannot thrive in the shadows of mass surveillance.

Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 7 February 2025