Lawmaker Files Complaint Against Telecom Over Government Data Request

A member of the upper chamber has filed a formal complaint against a major telecommunications provider after the company allegedly handed over his phone data to government prosecutors during their investigation of a former head of state and disputed election proceedings – a move that opposition lawmakers claim violated the nation’s constitution.

Lawyers representing the lawmaker wrote in the complaint to the Federal Communications Commission that the telecom company should publicly admit wrongdoing and discipline employees who were involved in complying with a subpoena for his phone data. Otherwise, regulators should declare that the company violated federal law and assign an independent monitor to oversee the firm, according to the complaint reviewed by local media.

“Such discipline would send a clear message that companies cannot collude with politically motivated prosecutors to violate customers’ rights,” the lawmaker’s legal team reportedly wrote. “The company is not above the law.”

The complaint detailed how the telecommunications provider complied with a former special prosecutor’s team by providing a narrow set of phone data from the lawmaker and several other members of the opposition faction as part of an investigation into the former president and the disputed election.

The telecom company justified its actions in a letter to the legislature in the fall, saying the subpoenas appeared “facially valid” and only contained phone numbers. They did not identify the subscribers or include information about the special prosecutor’s investigation, the company said.

The telecommunications provider said it did not notify the lawmakers about the subpoenas because they were accompanied by court-authorized gag orders, according to sources familiar with the matter.

Opposition lawmakers have widely condemned the subpoenas, saying they violated the constitution’s speech or debate clause, which gives legislative members an added layer of protection when it comes to prosecutorial matters – a provision common in nations with separation of powers.

The special prosecutor has repeatedly defended the subpoenas, saying he handled them according to government policy at the time. The policy in question has since been changed to require prosecutors to notify the courts if requested gag orders pertain to legislative members. Previously, it did not include that requirement, leading the courts to authorize gag orders against the lawmakers and reportedly deprive them of the ability to challenge the subpoenas.

The complaint represents the latest instance of a lawmaker seeking recourse for the subpoenas. Another senior member of the upper chamber, who was also targeted in the prosecutor’s probe, supported a controversial provision in government spending legislation that would have given lawmakers the ability to bring civil lawsuits against the justice department.

The provision caused significant infighting because of the perception that it would allow legislators to enrich themselves, and the lower chamber later voted overwhelmingly to repeal it, observers noted.

The complaint comes one day before another lawmaker from the same region holds a legislative hearing on the matter. Witnesses set to testify include executives from major telecommunications companies, according to official schedules.