The minister who has the power to authorise phone tapping will decide on whether to relinquish that power after reviewing a damning court judgment handed this week.
Home Affairs Minister Byron Camilleri said the government would be studying a sentence which found that a phone tap ordered by the then-minister in 2005 breached the right to a fair hearing of a suspected drug smuggler.
"All decisions will be taken after the judgment has been studied in detail," he told Times of Malta Wednesday.
"We must first study it thoroughly before making any decisions."
He would not say whether he agrees with relinquishing his tapping powers.
A constitutional court decreed on Tuesday that a phone intercept used to catch the suspected smuggler breached his right to a fair hearing because a minister authorised it.
The judgement adds further pressure on legislators to revise Malta’s wiretapping laws, which require such intercepts to be approved by a minister, rather than a court.
On the same day, the Chief Justice urged public authorities to “clearly and unequivocally” respect and support the law courts by ensuring that court decisions and orders are not hampered, defied or ignored.
Another judge had called for phone tapping laws to be rewritten in a similar case in 2023.
The controversial law
Malta's legal framework on phone interception is primarily governed by the Security Services Act, which outlines the conditions under which the Maltese Security Service can intercept telecommunications.
It says interception can only be carried out with a warrant issued by the minister responsible for the Security Service and every warrant must be issued in the national interest and be limited to the specific purpose outlined in it.
Notably, the law does not require judicial oversight for the issuance of these warrants. This has been a subject of criticism, raising concerns about potential abuses of power.
The law has not been substantially updated in recent years, leading to calls for reforms to address modern technological advancements and ensure greater transparency and accountability.
Moreover, several members of the judiciary have expressed concerns about the lack of judicial oversight and the potential for human rights violations in their judgments.