Nicosia, Cyprus. The House legal committee will convene again on Thursday to discuss proposed changes to the framework governing authorities’ access to private communications, with several MPs still dissatisfied with the government’s plans.
Government bill and oversight mechanism
Two weeks ago, the government submitted a bill under which decisions to access private communications would be taken by the head of the Cyprus intelligence service, who would then inform a three-member committee within 72 hours of any decision to monitor an individual’s private communications.
Previous government plans had envisaged the attorney-general issuing written approval to intercept private communications, but these are no longer included.
Disy amendment and differing views
Since the bill was introduced, Disy, the largest party in parliament, has decided it will table an amendment to reinsert a requirement that authorities obtain a court warrant before accessing private communications.
Akel MP Andreas Pasiourtides said on Monday that opinion among committee members appears to be coalescing around the government’s current plans.
MP Irene Charalambides, who is now of former auditor-general Odysseas Michaelides’ party, Alma, said, “we cannot come and give additional powers, completely unchecked, to the attorney-general.” On the committee’s composition, she said she would prefer three former supreme court judges.
Charalambides said she is willing to accept the current plans, saying they mirror an existing three-member committee overseeing activities by the Cyprus intelligence service, which is currently chaired by a former judge.
Committee chair role
Committee chairman and Disy MP Nicos Tornaritis previously said the three-member committee appointed to examine ex post facto decisions to intercept and access private communications will be chaired by a high-ranking former judge who has served as chief justice of a district court, of the supreme court, or of the constitutional court.
Penalties for unlawful surveillance
Other committee sessions have heard that anyone found to have conducted unlawful surveillance could face up to 10 years in prison.
Do you support requiring a court warrant before authorities can access private communications?
