Mozambique Recording Laws: All-Party Consent Rules and Penalties (2026)

Mozambique's All-Party Consent Standard

Mozambique requires the consent of all parties before anyone may record a conversation, photograph or film another person, or intercept any form of private communication. This standard took effect when President Filipe Nyusi promulgated Lei 24/2019 in December 2019, amending the country's Penal Code (originally enacted as Law 35/2014).

The amendments created several new offenses under the heading "Crimes Against Privacy" (Crimes contra a Privacidade). These provisions do not distinguish between audio and video. They cover all formats: voice recordings, photographs, video footage, phone call interceptions, text messages, emails, and social media communications.

Mozambique's approach is stricter than most countries in the region. South Africa, for comparison, permits one-party consent recording. Mozambique goes further by requiring consent from everyone involved and by criminalizing even the recording of words spoken directly to the person doing the recording.

The Revised Penal Code: Lei 24/2019

The Mozambican Parliament (Assembleia da Republica) approved the Penal Code amendments in July 2019. President Nyusi signed the revisions into law on December 24, 2019. The law introduced a full chapter on privacy crimes that had no equivalent in the previous code.

Invasion of Private Life (Devassa da Vida Privada)

The central provision criminalizes what Mozambican law calls "devassa da vida privada," roughly translated as intrusion into private life. The offense carries a prison sentence of up to one year and a corresponding fine.

The law punishes anyone who, without consent and with the intention of invading another person's private life (particularly the intimacy of family or sexual life), does any of the following:

• Intercepts, records, registers, uses, transmits, or discloses conversations or telephone communications
• Intercepts, records, uses, transmits, or discloses images, photographs, videos, or audio
• Captures, photographs, films, manipulates, records, or discloses images of people, objects, or intimate spaces
• Secretly observes or listens to people who are in private places
• Discloses facts relating to the private life or serious illness of another person
• Intercepts, records, uses, transmits, or discloses detailed billing records, email messages, social network messages, or communications on any data transmission platform

This is a sweeping list. It covers virtually every form of modern communication and surveillance technology.

Illicit Recordings (Gravacoes Ilicitas)

A separate provision addresses recordings specifically. It punishes with the same penalty (up to one year in prison and a fine) anyone who:

• Records words spoken by another person that are not intended for the public, even if those words are addressed to the recorder
• Uses or allows the use of such recordings, even if the recordings were lawfully produced

The second element is particularly notable. A recording that was legally made at the time of creation can still trigger criminal liability if the person who holds it allows someone else to use it without consent. Lawful production does not automatically confer lawful use.

Photography and Filming

The Penal Code also criminalizes photographing or filming another person without consent, even at events in which the subject legitimately participated. Using or allowing the use of such photographs or films, even if they were lawfully obtained, is punishable under the same terms.

This provision raised immediate practical questions. Photographers at public gatherings, sports events, or cultural festivals technically need consent from every identifiable person in their frames. Enforcement of this provision in its literal form would be nearly impossible at large events.

Intent Requirement

The privacy invasion offense requires proof of a specific intent: the perpetrator must have acted "with the intention of invading another person's private life." This mens rea element means that accidental recordings, incidental captures in public settings, or recordings made for purposes unrelated to invading privacy may fall outside the scope of the offense.

In practice, this intent requirement gives prosecutors discretion and provides defendants with a potential defense. Proving that someone recorded a conversation specifically to invade private life, rather than to preserve evidence of wrongdoing or for some other purpose, can be difficult.

The Public Interest Exception

The Penal Code includes an exception stating that the privacy invasion offense is not punishable when the conduct constitutes "an appropriate means to realize a legitimate and relevant public interest."

This language tracks similar provisions found in Portuguese law, which heavily influenced Mozambique's legal system. The exception theoretically protects journalists conducting investigations, whistleblowers documenting corruption, and citizens recording evidence of crimes.

The problem, according to civil liberties organizations, is that the exception is vague. The law does not define what qualifies as a "legitimate and relevant public interest." It does not specify who makes that determination or at what stage of proceedings. A journalist or activist would need to record first and then argue the public interest defense later, after already facing criminal charges.

Prosecution Depends on Complaint

For most privacy offenses under the revised code, criminal prosecution depends on a formal complaint (queixa) from the person whose privacy was allegedly violated. The state does not initiate prosecution on its own. This procedural requirement means that the offended party retains control over whether a case moves forward.

This complaint-based mechanism provides some practical protection. A journalist who records a politician without consent would only face prosecution if the politician files a complaint. But it also means that powerful individuals can selectively use the law to silence critics who record them.

Constitutional Framework

The Mozambican Constitution of 2004 (revised 2007) establishes the foundation for privacy protection and, simultaneously, for the freedoms that come into tension with recording restrictions.

Right to Privacy (Article 68)

Article 68 of the Constitution declares that a person's home, correspondence, and other forms of private communication are inviolable, except as specifically provided by law. Entry into a citizen's home without consent may only be ordered by competent judicial authorities, in instances and procedures established by law.

Exclusion of Illegally Obtained Evidence (Article 65)

Article 65(3) provides that evidence obtained through abusive intrusion into a person's private and family life, home, correspondence, or telecommunications is invalid. This constitutional provision means that recordings obtained in violation of the Penal Code's consent requirements are inadmissible in Mozambican courts.

Right to Honor and Reputation

Citizens have the constitutional right to honor, good name, reputation, protection of their public image, and privacy. The Penal Code amendments implement these constitutional guarantees through criminal sanctions.

Computerized Data (Article 71)

Article 71 of the Constitution prohibits the use of computerized means for recording and processing individually identifiable data relating to political beliefs, philosophical or ideological convictions, religious faith, party or trade union affiliation, or private lives. This provision predates the Penal Code amendments but reinforces the broader privacy framework.

Telephone Recording and Interception

Private Phone Calls

Recording a telephone conversation in Mozambique without the consent of all parties is a criminal offense when done with intent to invade privacy. The revised Penal Code explicitly lists "telephone communications" among the protected categories. This applies to mobile calls, landline calls, and internet-based voice calls conducted through platforms like WhatsApp or Zoom.

A person who records their own phone call without telling the other party risks prosecution under the "illicit recordings" provision, which punishes recording words spoken by another person even when those words are addressed to the recorder. The all-party standard means both sides of the conversation must agree.

Government Interception: Decree 33/2001

Decree No. 33/2001 of November 6 governs the licensing and regulation of telecommunications services. Article 35 of the Decree requires licensed telecommunications providers to cooperate with "legal competent authorities regarding the legal interception of communications."

Under the regulation, interception is conducted through duly credentialed members of the Regulatory Authority. The framework lacks detailed procedural safeguards. There is no clearly defined process for obtaining an interception order, no specified duration limit, and no independent oversight body that reviews compliance with interception requests.

Telecommunications Law (Law 8/2004)

Law No. 8/2004 provides additional rules on communications privacy. Article 68 of this law protects the secrecy of communications, with exceptions for criminal matters and cases involving national security, terrorism prevention, and organized crime. Article 10 grants the government authority to issue mandatory instructions to telecommunications operators during declared states of siege or emergency, including the power to cancel a provider's license.

The practical effect is that Mozambican law enforcement can access telephone communications through the regulatory framework, but the process is opaque. No law explicitly grants agencies the power to directly access a provider's network without the provider's operational involvement.

In-Person Recording

Recording face-to-face conversations follows the same all-party consent standard. The Penal Code does not distinguish between phone recordings and in-person recordings. Any recording of words not intended for the public, captured without the speaker's consent, can trigger criminal liability.

The "not intended for the public" qualifier is important. A speech delivered at a public rally, a statement made at a press conference, or comments shouted in a public street are, by their nature, intended for public consumption. Recording those statements does not require consent.

Private conversations in offices, homes, restaurants, or other settings where participants reasonably expect privacy fall squarely within the law's scope. Recording a private business meeting, a conversation between friends, or a discussion in a closed room all require the consent of everyone present.

Recording in Public Places

The Penal Code amendments, according to Carlos Mondlane, chairperson of the Mozambican Association of Judges (AMJ), do not cover recording or filming events that take place in public. Mondlane stated that the restrictions specifically target "illicit or clandestine recordings" that violate citizens' privacy rights and do not affect activities in the public sphere.

This interpretation aligns with the intent requirement in the law. Recording a public event, street scene, or open-air gathering does not, on its face, demonstrate intent to invade anyone's private life.

However, the Penal Code's provision on photographing or filming another person "even at an event in which he has legitimately participated" complicates matters. Read literally, this provision could apply to photographing a person at a public concert or sporting event. The tension between these provisions has not been resolved through case law, and legal uncertainty remains.

As a practical matter, filming in public spaces in Mozambique carries real risk. In October 2021, a journalist covering a road accident was surrounded by police officers who confiscated his phone and demanded he erase footage of the scene. Such incidents suggest that on-the-ground enforcement does not always follow the narrower legal interpretation offered by senior judges.

Journalism and Press Freedom Concerns

The recording provisions of the revised Penal Code triggered immediate and sustained criticism from press freedom organizations, journalists, and civil society groups in Mozambique and internationally.

Activist and Journalist Reactions

Journalist Rafael Machalela warned that the changes represent "a new potential restriction on the right to inform, and on press freedom." The civic organization Txeka stated the law "undermines freedom of expression and access to information."

MISA Mozambique (the Media Institute of Southern Africa's Mozambique chapter) documented a sharp increase in press freedom violations following passage of the law. The organization recorded 33 violations against journalists in 2020, up from 20 in 2019. Physical assault was the most common violation (10 of 33 recorded incidents), followed by threats (5) and detentions (4).

The Government's Response

Senior judicial officials pushed back on the criticism. Carlos Mondlane of the Association of Judges claimed that the recording restrictions do not affect journalism because journalists operate in the public sphere. He framed the restrictions as targeting private invasions of privacy, not news reporting.

The government justified the amendments partly as a response to a specific incident: a viral video showed a young man recording victims of a car accident with apparent indifference, which sparked public outrage. Supporters of the law welcomed it as a tool to protect victims from exploitation on social media.

The Broader Pattern

The recording law does not exist in isolation. Mozambique passed additional legislation that press freedom organizations view as threatening. The Law for the Suppression, Combat, and Prevention of Terrorism, adopted to address the insurgency in Cabo Delgado province, imposes 12 to 16 years of imprisonment for disclosing classified information and 8 to 12 years for intentionally disseminating allegedly false information about terrorism.

Draft Social Communication and Broadcasting laws presented to parliament in 2021 contained provisions that MISA Mozambique found to breach several articles of the Constitution, including limitations on the activities of both Mozambican and international journalists.

Reporters Without Borders ranked Mozambique 116th out of 180 countries for press freedom in 2022, a significant decline from 73rd place in 2013. A "significant number" of Mozambican media outlets are "controlled directly or indirectly by the authorities," according to the organization.

Risk for Investigative Journalism

The practical risk is straightforward. An investigative journalist who covertly records a conversation with a corrupt official is technically committing a crime under the Penal Code. The journalist would need to rely on the vague "public interest" exception as a defense, with no guarantee that a court would accept it. The chilling effect is real: journalists may avoid recording conversations that could expose wrongdoing because the legal risk is too high.

The disappearance of journalist Ibrahimo Mbaruco in April 2020 while reporting near conflict zones in the north, with authorities remaining silent more than two years later, underscores the hostile environment for press freedom in the country.

Workplace Recording and Employee Privacy

Labour Law Protections (Lei 13/2023)

Mozambique's new Labour Law (Act 13/2023 of August 25), which took effect on February 21, 2024, includes specific privacy protections relevant to workplace recording.

Remote surveillance restrictions: The use of CCTV and similar remote surveillance technology in the workplace is permitted only when it serves the protection and security of people and goods, or when surveillance is part of the normal production process of the company or sector. Surveillance for the purpose of monitoring employee behavior or performance is not authorized.

Written notice requirement: Employers who use remote surveillance must provide written notice to employees about the existence and purpose of the surveillance. This notice constitutes legal proof of compliance. If the employer fails to provide written notice, any evidence obtained through the surveillance is null and void under Mozambican law.

Communication privacy: An employee's personal correspondence, conducted through any private communication means including letters and electronic messages, is inviolable except where expressly permitted by law. Employers may establish internal regulations governing the use of company information technology systems, but they cannot access private communications on those systems without legal authorization.

Personal data limits: Employers may not request or require employees or job applicants to provide information about their private lives unless specific requirements inherent to the nature of the job justify the request. HIV/AIDS testing of employees or applicants is explicitly prohibited.

Recording Conversations at Work

The Penal Code's all-party consent requirement applies in the workplace. An employee who records a meeting with their supervisor without consent, or an employer who records a conversation with an employee without notice, risks criminal liability.

The Labour Law's surveillance provisions add a layer of protection. Even if an employer argues that a workplace recording was made for legitimate business purposes, the failure to provide written notice renders the recording inadmissible.

Data Protection Landscape

No Standalone Data Protection Law

As of early 2026, Mozambique has no comprehensive data protection statute. Privacy obligations are scattered across the Constitution, the Penal Code, the Labour Law, the Electronic Transactions Law (Law 3/2017), and other sector-specific legislation.

The Personal Data Protection Bill (2025)

In September 2025, the National Institute of Information and Communication Technologies (INTIC) published a draft Personal Data Protection Bill for public consultation. The bill aims to establish clear rules for the collection, processing, and storage of personal data, and to align Mozambique with the African Union Convention on Cybersecurity and Personal Data Protection, which the country ratified in 2019.

The proposed law would create a National Authority for the Protection of Personal Data (ANPD) to oversee enforcement. After public consultation closes, the bill requires technical harmonization between government entities before submission to the Council of Ministers and the Assembly of the Republic for approval.

If enacted, this law would give Mozambique its first dedicated framework for regulating how organizations handle personal data, including recordings containing identifiable information.

Electronic Transactions Law (Law 3/2017)

The Electronic Transactions Law requires data controllers to maintain "precise, complete, and updated" personal information and to notify INTIC before processing personal data. Data processors must appoint compliance officers. These requirements apply to organizations that store audio or video recordings containing personal information, though enforcement has been minimal.

Penalties Summary

Offense	Legal Basis	Penalty
Recording conversation without consent (with intent to invade privacy)	Penal Code (Lei 24/2019), privacy crimes chapter	Up to 1 year prison + fine
Recording words not intended for public, even if addressed to recorder	Penal Code (Lei 24/2019), illicit recordings provision	Up to 1 year prison + fine
Using or allowing use of recordings, even if lawfully produced	Penal Code (Lei 24/2019), illicit recordings provision	Up to 1 year prison + fine
Photographing or filming a person without consent	Penal Code (Lei 24/2019), privacy crimes chapter	Up to 1 year prison + fine
Disclosing private life facts or serious illness of another	Penal Code (Lei 24/2019), privacy crimes chapter	Up to 1 year prison + fine
Workplace surveillance without written employee notice	Labour Law (Act 13/2023)	Evidence rendered null and void
Unauthorized database access	Penal Code (Lei 24/2019), cybercrime provisions	Up to 2 years prison

Business Compliance in Mozambique

Companies operating in Mozambique that handle voice communications, customer recordings, or employee data should take the following steps to reduce legal risk.

Obtain explicit consent before recording. Any business that records phone calls, meetings, or customer interactions must secure consent from all parties before the recording begins. Consent should be documented in writing or captured at the start of a recorded call through an audible notification.

Implement workplace surveillance policies. If your business uses CCTV or other remote monitoring technology, use it only for security and safety purposes. Provide written notice to all employees describing what is being monitored, why, and how footage is stored and accessed.

Protect employee communications. Do not access employee personal messages or correspondence, even on company devices, without clear legal authorization. Establish internal IT policies that distinguish between company communication channels (which may be subject to monitoring with notice) and private channels (which remain protected).

Prepare for data protection legislation. The draft Personal Data Protection Bill, once enacted, will impose new obligations on organizations that process personal data. Begin mapping what recordings your organization collects, how long they are retained, and who has access.

Document your legal basis. For every recording your organization collects, identify the specific legal basis that authorizes the collection. Store this documentation and make it available for review.

Limit data retention. Do not keep recordings longer than necessary for their stated purpose. Establish written retention schedules and enforce them.