Editorial: Reform of the Security Service is long overdue

There is much to discuss about the latest controversy involving the bugging of a room in prison where inmates meet their relatives and lawyers. The issue came to light after the Chamber of Advocates filed a judicial protest following a complaint it received from a member. The chamber also said it had evidence, in the form of court testimony, that suggested the Secret Service had installed listening devices in prison meeting rooms for high-risk inmates. The testimony was given behind closed doors and so we are not privy to its contents.

The chamber’s main concern was whether legally privileged conversations between inmates and their lawyers were being intercepted, which would constitute a breach of human rights.

It transpires that a warrant had been issued by the Home Affairs Minister in 2021 for such devices to be installed but from the testimony it is unclear whether any interceptions took place. In any case, a warrant expires after six months unless it is extended by the minister.

On Sunday, this leader asked a pertinent question as to whether the chamber was used by members of the legal profession to create a public controversy that could potentially scuttle pending court cases. The chamber insists it acted diligently and tried to sort things out quietly before deciding to go public with the judicial protest. It still begs an answer as to why this issue was raised now at a very convenient moment for some.

But this leader is not about the implications of the chamber’s actions. There is another aspect to the wider issue concerning the Security Service and the checks and balances to ensure this important organ of the State does not go rogue.

The law that set up the Security Service was enacted in 1996—a full 30 years ago—and never amended in a substantive way.

The secret service is tasked to “protect national security” with a particular focus on “threats from organised crime, espionage, terrorism and sabotage, the activities of agents of foreign powers and against actions intended to overthrow or undermine parliamentary democracy by political, industrial or violent means”.

To do so it has the power to intercept communications and carry out intrusive surveillance operations as long as these are covered by a warrant signed by the minister.

Under the current legislative framework, the actions of the secret service are overseen by the Security Committee—made up of the prime minister, home affairs minister, foreign minister and the Opposition leader—and a commissioner, who has the power to ask for information and draw up an annual report.

The commissioner is also tasked to handle complaints about the Security Service but any determination they may make is submitted to the prime minister.

This leader believes the time has come for a review of the Security Services Act, specifically to ensure better oversight of the Malta Security Service.

While we understand that in matters of national security, involving cross-border threats, it may be necessary for a warrant to be issued by a minister, the time has come to consider whether interception warrants should be issued by the judiciary. The current set up raises questions as to whether the home affairs minister would be best suited to sign a warrant if the secret service is following a lead that involves a fellow Cabinet colleague. Involving the judiciary, which is independent of the executive, could help mitigate such concerns when the issue involves internal crime.

The only public interface the security service has is through the annual report that is tabled in parliament by the prime minister. While we understand that the nature of the work undertaken by the security service involves secrecy and discretion, we believe the annual report merits discussion and probing by members of parliament.

To this end, we believe that parliament should have a standing committee focussed on security, which could hold certain meetings, or parts of meetings, behind closed doors to scrutinise the Security Service’s work, discuss the annual report and seek further clarification from the organisation’s head. This would provide an additional level of oversight.

The work of the Security Service is indispensable in the fight against organised crime since it can provide the necessary intelligence to bring down such networks. But given the wide powers it enjoys to snoop and probe, ensuring its actions fall within the remit of the law is something necessary in a democratic society. We believe that 30 years after the secret service was set up, a mature conversation on how it should be reformed is more than due.