Interception answer bugs DA MP

By Leon Engelbrecht, ITWeb senior writer

Johannesburg, 06 Mar 2008

Democratic Alliance MP Mike Waters says he can't get the police or National Intelligence Agency (NIA) to say if they have been bugging his mobile phone.

"Contacts I have in SAPS [SA Police Service] warned me that my phone is being bugged by SAPS so I should be careful what I say over the phone," he says.

"I decided to submit questions to the Ministers of Safety and Intelligence just to see what they would say."

Bugging is governed by the Regulation of Interception and Provision of Communication-related Information Act (RICA) of 2002 and the Interception and Monitoring Prohibition Act of 1992. Both laws set down requirements that have to be met before any state agency can monitor anyone.

RICA, in addition, requires telecommunications providers and Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to install lawful intercept (LI) technology at their own cost to monitor voice and data traffic across their networks and provide the material gathered to the state against a warrant signed by a High Court judge. Most telecoms providers and large ISPs have done so.

The information gathered must be on-passed to the Office for Interception Centres (OIC), created under RICA. The OIC then forwards the intercepted data to the law enforcement agency that asked for it.

Government maintains LI is a crucial part of police investigations into organised crime and efforts to fight terrorism.

Government response

Waters asked the NIA and the police, through their respective ministers, to say whether they have bugged the communications of "any public representative in any sphere of government" since 1994. He also wanted to know who they were, why they had been bugged and for how long.

Intelligence minister Ronnie Kasrils said in his response that the NIA "in the usual course of its operations, does not confirm or deny the identity of targets, sources or methods of operation."

He says the confidentiality of these issues is protected by the Intelligence Services Act of 2002, which obliges the director-general "to protect this information".

"On this basis, I am, therefore, unable to respond to the question as it is of an operational and sensitive nature, which cannot be dealt with in the National Assembly," Kasrils says. "The appropriate forum to discuss such matters is the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence."

Kasrils further explained the law contained several control measures to protect the public. "One such control is that a designated judge has... to authorise an interception if he/she is convinced that an offence has been or is being or will be committed; and that the offence cannot be investigated by any other method.

"I further wish to assure the honourable member that the services have embarked on a civic education programme, which comprises training, internal debates and other activities that focus on the Constitutional obligations placed on the Intelligence Services," Kasrils said. "These obligations demand compliance with our laws, including international law. Concurrent to this programme is a review of the legislation, policies and operational procedures of the [Intelligence] Services."

But he would not say if NIA had been bugging any MPs.

Safety and security minister Charles Nqakula also declined to provide a firm answer. "Due to the provisions of Section 7 of the Interception and Monitoring Prohibition Act... the SAPS is not in a position to provide the requested information by either admitting or denying whether any interception had been, or is being conducted," he said. "The SAPS is committed to always executing its functions in respect of sensitive methods of investigations within the ambit of the law."

Waters said in response: "I am surprised at the speed with which they answered the question, but not surprised that they hid behind the law and refused to answer the questions."