Federal Minister for Law, Azam Nazeer Tarar, recently defended the government’s decision to allow a spy agency to tap phone calls in the “interest of national security.” He claimed that the United Kingdom has similar provisions, authorizing security agencies to intercept phone calls. This claim, however, is misleading and lacks important context.
During a July 9 debate in the national assembly, the law minister argued that the UK government grants its intelligence agencies similar powers. He referenced the UK’s Telecommunications (Lawful Business Practice) (Interception of Communications) Regulations 2000, suggesting that these regulations authorize security agencies to intercept private communications. Defence Minister Khawaja Asif echoed this argument, stating that in developed countries like the US and the UK, such practices occur under the umbrella of national security.
However, legal experts argue that security agencies in the UK do not have blanket powers to surveil citizens. Any surveillance requests are subject to strict civilian and judicial oversight. Muhammad Shafeeque Chaudhry, a London-based lawyer, clarified that the Telecommunications (Interception of Communications) Regulations 2000 only permits businesses to monitor communications on their own networks without user consent. This law does not pertain to security agencies.
The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) governs surveillance of private individuals in the UK by public bodies. Even under RIPA, surveillance must be conducted in a manner that protects the public and their human rights. Chaudhry noted that RIPA ensures government organizations justify the use of covert techniques to investigate individuals, including provisions that place strict limits on who can use such techniques.
Additionally, warrants are required from courts before any surveillance can be undertaken. Lahore-based lawyer Asad Jamal explained that in the UK, the Secretary of State must be satisfied that surveillance is necessary and proportionate to the presented facts. The Secretary must issue a warrant for surveillance, which must be approved by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office (IPCO) and, in certain cases, by an independent judge acting as Judicial Commissioner. IPCO comprises inspectors, authorizing officers, lawyers, and policy officials, ensuring that surveillance powers are used lawfully and in the public interest.
Jamal also pointed out that UK law, particularly RIPA, has undergone significant changes since 2016 with the introduction of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. This act further strengthens oversight and accountability for surveillance activities.
In contrast, the Pakistani government’s notification granting the ISI powers to tap phone calls under Section 54 of the Pakistan Telecommunication Re-Organisation Act 1996 does not mention independent oversight or accountability for potential abuse or violation of privacy rights. This omission is significant because, without independent oversight, there is a higher risk of human rights abuses and violations of citizens’ privacy and dignity.
The comparison made by Pakistani officials between the surveillance laws of the UK and Pakistan omits critical details about the stringent oversight and legal safeguards present in the UK system. In the UK, surveillance is tightly regulated, requires judicial approval, and is subject to independent oversight to protect individual rights. In Pakistan, the new surveillance powers lack similar safeguards, raising concerns about potential misuse and infringement on citizens’ privacy.
While the UK does have laws that allow for the interception of communications, these laws include robust oversight mechanisms that ensure the protection of human rights. The recent decision by the Pakistani government to grant similar powers to the ISI lacks these essential safeguards, making the comparison misleading and highlighting significant differences in how surveillance is regulated in the two countries.
