[Moustass Leaks Case] The Origin of Two Listening Devices at the Heart of the Investigation
The origin of two telephone listening devices has become the central focus of the investigation conducted by the Central Criminal Investigation Department (CCID) in the so-called Moustass Leaks case. For several months, the inquiry has revolved around recordings attributed to Misie Moustass, which were widely circulated during the 2024 electoral campaign. However, a new aspect of the case is now drawing attention: the origin, acquisition, and use of these sensitive surveillance devices. Preliminary information suggests that these devices were purchased for intelligence services as well as the Counter Terrorism Unit, but the procedures surrounding their acquisition and management are currently under thorough examination.
The Moustass Leaks case began when several audio recordings circulated on social media during the electoral campaign. These excerpts, attributed to Misie Moustass, quickly generated significant public and political interest. In light of the implications of this dissemination, the CCID initiated an investigation to determine the authenticity of the recordings, the circumstances of their capture, and potential responsibilities for their spread. Since then, several hearings have been held, and experts have been called in to analyze the audio files. However, as the investigation progressed, attention gradually shifted to the equipment that may have been used to make these recordings.
In this context, two telephone listening devices have been identified as key elements. Investigators are trying to understand who ordered this equipment, through which channels it was imported, and for what operations it was intended. According to available preliminary information, these devices were reportedly acquired for the operational needs of intelligence services and the Counter Terrorism Unit. However, no official confirmation has yet been provided regarding the procedures that governed their purchase or the authorizations obtained beforehand. Numerous questions arise: Were these devices compliant with legal standards? Were they used in an authorized framework? Who had access to the information they allowed to collect?
At the heart of this part of the investigation is Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) Lilram Deal, former head of the Counter Terrorism Unit. On Tuesday, he was arrested by the CCID in connection with this specific aspect of the case. The officer, already suspended in connection with the Reward Money case, is accused of refusing to provide the complete access codes for a listening device to investigators. These codes are essential for the police to access the data stored on the device and analyze its content. According to investigators, only part of the codes has been communicated, which does not allow unlocking all features of the equipment or accessing all data.
Officers handling the case suspect that ACP Deal holds the remaining codes and that he has not willingly transmitted them. The reasons for this potential withholding have not been specified by investigators, who are currently focused on fully recovering access to the devices. This situation complicates the progress of the investigations, as access to the data is considered crucial for understanding the context in which these devices were used and whether their use was compliant with legal provisions.
The arrest of ACP Deal marks an important milestone in this investigation. Following his time at the CCID, the officer was admitted to a private clinic. This hospitalization comes as investigators continue their efforts to clarify his exact role in managing the listening devices and to determine whether he indeed obstructed the investigation by refusing to provide the requested information. So far, no indication has been given regarding the duration of his hospitalization or his health status, but his absence prolongs the uncertainty surrounding the recovery of the remaining codes.
Alongside this aspect, the CCID continues to examine the conditions under which the recordings attributed to Misie Moustass were made and then disseminated. Investigators are particularly trying to establish whether the seized devices could have been used to capture some of the conversations that circulated in 2024. This question remains open and largely depends on full access to the data contained in the devices. The technical analyses conducted so far have not yet provided definitive answers.
The use of telephone listening devices in Mauritius is strictly regulated by law. Legislation stipulates that such surveillance can only be authorized in specific situations, particularly under the Dangerous Drugs Act or the Prevention of Terrorism Act. In all cases, authorization must be obtained from a judge in chambers for a specified period. The ongoing investigation seeks to establish whether these conditions were met during the use of the identified devices and whether the recordings attributed to Misie Moustass were made within a legal framework.
At this stage, several uncertainties remain. The identity of the person or authority that authorized the purchase of the devices is yet to be clarified. The investigation must also establish the chain of custody of this equipment from its acquisition to its use. Investigators are further seeking to determine who, within the relevant services, was aware of their existence and had access to their functionalities.
The CCID is continuing its work on the various aspects of this case. The next steps will largely depend on obtaining the complete access codes and the possibility of analyzing the recorded data. Investigators believe that this information is essential to reconstruct the devices' journey and understand the role they may have played in the Moustass Leaks case. Meanwhile, the investigation continues on multiple levels, including tracing the purchase procedures, conducting technical analyses, and interrogating the relevant officers.
