Gérard Davet, an investigative journalist with French daily newspaper Le Monde, is currently at the centre of a scandal that has led to criminal charges against the head of the country’s domestic intelligence agency for allegedly misusing security services to uncover Davet’s sources.

Davet – who uncovered allegations that L’Oreal heiress and billionaire Liliane Bettencourt handed bundles of cash to politicians, including French President Nicolas Sarkozy’s 2007 campaign manager, in an illegal campaign-financing scheme – says elements of the Direction Central du Renseignement Intérieur (DCRI) illegally obtained his telephone records last year in order to identify the source of his reports.

The head of that agency, Bernard Squarcini, a friend of Sarkozy, now faces charges that he violated confidential correspondence, illegally collected data and broke French law protecting the confidentiality of journalists’ sources. The charges followed the revelation of documents detailing the DCRI’s requisition of Davet’s records from telephone operator Orange.

Magistrate Sylvie Zimmerman reportedly initiated the charges against Squarcini in order to continue her investigation before possibly sending the case to trial. Local media have said she is due to question French police chief Frederic Pechenard soon, which could lead to more charges and a wider scandal.

Le Monde reported Tuesday that Squarcini told Zimmerman: “I do what I’m told to do with the tools that I’m given.” However, the spy chief apparently declined to say who ordered the spying. Sarkozy’s office has denied accusations that the president was behind the surveillance.

IPI: What is your reaction to hearing that Mr. Squarcini has been put under investigation for accusations that he ordered elements of the security services to obtain telephone records to identify a source for one of your stories?

Davet: It is simply logical. The investigating judge, independent of other authorities, obtained the proof that the secret services had asked, illegally, for my phone invoices to know the identity of my correspondents and my geographical location. Mr Squarcini, the boss of the secret services, is very close to Nicolas Sarkozy. I investigated the Bettencourt affair, which threatens Nicolas Sarkozy. It was thus necessary to end my revelations.

IPI: Were both you and Fabrice Lhomme – your investigative partner – targeted?

Davet: I was the only one to have been watched. But we have the feeling, albeit not proof, that Fabrice Lhomme was targeted in 2010 when he investigated, for the website Médiapart, the Karachi affair, which implicates close relations of Nicolas Sarkozy.

[Lhomme and journalist Fabrice Arfi reported for Médiapart on the investigation into a 2002 bomb blast in Karachi, Pakistan, that left 14 people dead, including 11 French naval engineers. Although originally blamed on militants, the bombing was allegedly orchestrated by Pakistani officials in retaliation for France’s failure to pay previously-agreed-upon arms deal kickbacks.]

IPI: How did you learn that Mr. Squarcini had allegedly obtained your telephone records?

Davet: I learned thanks to David Sénat, a former adviser to the justice minister. He was demoted because he was suspected of having given me information. He told me, I investigated, and we confirmed twice that the secret services had investigated us. I lodged a complaint and the investigating judge was able to obtain proof from the phone operator Orange that the secret services had asked for my records via a requisition, dated 19 July 2010, signed by the DCRI, which demanded my invoices held by Orange.

IPI: Do you have reason to believe the intelligence services took any other actions targeting you?

Davet: I have no proof of the other actions launched against me. But at the same time, in October 2010, my apartment was broken into and my computer and my GPS device were stolen. However, they left my camera and a Nintendo console. Thus, I have a strong suspicion on the origin of this theft, but no proof.

IPI: Reports indicate that Mr. Squarcini was charged Monday with violating confidential correspondence, illegally collecting data and violating the confidentiality of sources. Do you think these charges are sufficient, or should he face any additional charges?

Davet: I think that these charges are important, because they allow to Mr Squarcini to be brought before a court. But France’s law on the violation of the confidentiality of sources does not provide for penalties. It is a problem.

IPI: Members of the Socialist Party have called for Mr. Squarcini’s resignation, but his supporters have pointed to the presumption of innocence. Do you think he should resign?

Davet: I am a journalist, not a politician. Thus, I demand the resignation of nobody. I note simply that in France, one can be suspected of grave acts and stay in his post with no problem at all. In England, in the USA, in Germany, Mr Squarcini would have been forced to resign.

IPI: What about Frederic Pechenard, France’s top policeman, who is reportedly scheduled to be interviewed in the case, or Philippe Courroye, a state prosecutor who had been summoned for questioning before his appearance was postponed over questions of legal procedure? Do you have reason to believe they were involved or should face charges?

Davet: Mr. Courroye also asked for my invoices, but in a judicial context. But he had no right to make that request and he too should be indicted, even if he delays with very legal defences. Mr. Péchenard tried to end the leaks at the request of those in power. But, as can be seen, he was not the one who set up the mode of surveillance. He could therefore escape an indictment.

IPI: What does this case say about the importance of French law protecting the confidentiality of journalists’ sources?

Davet: This affair shows that the law on the violation of the confidentiality of sources is useful, but not sufficient. Indeed, it does not allow for someone to be pursued in front of a court because it does not carry penalties. It is necessary to make the law complete. I believe that my experience is going to advance the law on this subject, even if it became more difficult for me to work today.