Parliament Unhappy With Phone Tap Law

Members of Kazakstan’s parliament have asked for revisions to a bill that would allow phone tapping to be used in police investigations. NBCentralAsia commentators share the deputies’ objections to parts of the proposed legislation which they feel would run contrary to the Kazak constitution and would be in breach of fundamental human rights.



On January 17, the Majilis or lower house of parliament reviewed a proposal to legalise the use of phone surveillance and tracking devices in investigations concerning people suspected of, or already indicted for, crimes of “medium gravity”. The law’s authors say that it is this middle category of offences, which account for the bulk of crimes committed in Kazakstan, where the current legislation governing investigations is least effective.



However, members of parliament decided not to pass the bill, which has had a hostile reaction from the public, and instead sent it back to be rewritten.



Both legislators and human rights activists explain that in their view, the planned law would contradict a clause in the constitution that guarantees the inviolability of personal life, private correspondence and phone conversations, and the sanctity of the home.



“I regard the bill as anticonstitutional,” said member of parliament Valery Doskalov. “If it’s passed in its present form, it will be a retrograde step in the direction of totalitarianism.”



Doskalov said that if the phone-tap law is designed to help counter terrorism, then it should define clearly the circumstances in which investigative agencies are allowed to resort to such methods. As long as the law is modified so that it is in keeping with both the Kazak constitution and international law, he believes it could prove a highly effective counter-terrorism tool.



Kazakstan’s human rights ombudsman Bolat Baikadamov notes that the legislation envisages the new job of surveillance agent tasked with bugging phones and watching suspects – but it does not set out the rules such personnel would be required to operate by.



“Removing the requirement that a warrant be obtained [from a court or the prosecution service] to conduct certain kinds of investigation could lead to a situation where the officers involved might operate with impunity,” he told NBCentralAsia.



Baikadamov warned that the legislation would facilitate “total surveillance”, which could also be exploited for illegal purposes.



In addition, he noted with concern that the use of surveillance methods would be extended from serious crime and terrorism to include “medium gravity” offences. “Restrictive practices of this kind must be proportional. Is breaching someone’s right to private life proportionate to the threat posed by a moderately serious crime? Of course it isn’t.



“The primacy of human rights over all other values is assured by the constitution, and that is what must be the guiding principle.”



(News Briefing Central Asia draws comment and analysis from a broad range of political observers across the region.)