The security committee, which oversees the expenditure, administration and policy of the security service, is bound by law to make an annual report on the discharge of its functions. Given the very delicate nature of the security service’s work, such reports cannot be very elaborate and detailed, though they still give a good idea of the main threats to national security and problems faced by members of the service.
The annual report for 2020, which has just been tabled in parliament together with that for 2019, lets it be known that, in late 2019 and early 2020, the security service set in motion a “strategic review”.
This entailed “proposals” and “the implementation of changes enabling it to be better placed to address the usual challenges as well the realities that surface by time”.
The initiative includes a number of elements like proposals for a new law governing the security service, measures to make the service more relevant to address future challenges, a managerial function focused on strategic planning and an operational analysis as well as an increase in logistical capabilities, laying stress on ICT.
The report does not indicate what stage these initiatives have reached, though it acknowledges that the pandemic did affect the progress on some of them while others went ahead.
There is certainly a need to upgrade the legal framework governing the security service, especially, though not only, because of the technological advancements made since its inception in 1996. It ought to be borne in mind that the intelligence gathering agency is the only body legally authorised to use spying techniques such as tapping e-mails or phone calls to investigate organised crime and terrorism.
Already in 2014, the security service commissioner at the time had felt there was need to amend the law.
In an evaluation report on Malta in 2019, the Council of Europe’s Group of States Against Corruption, GRECO, referred to the security service, noting that the law provides for broad discretion of the executive, namely the prime minister and the minister for home affairs and national security, in the case of use of special investigative techniques, “which are not supervised by a judicial authority”.
It pointed out that the supervision in place involves a commissioner appointed by the prime minister and a security committee composed of the prime minister, two other members of government and the leader of the opposition.
“Malta needs to provide for a proper system of checks and balance, as well as a balance between the needs of an effective fight against corruption (and other forms of serious crime) and the preservation of fundamental rights,” GRECO had observed.
In its view, legislation was required to give criminal investigation bodies the authority to seek and use special investigative techniques, like wiretapping.
Whether the new law that the security service has in mind is on the same lines as GRECO’s suggestions can only be established when and if draft legislation is published.
The security service, which, in Malta’s case deals with both internal and extraterritorial affairs, works in ‘silence’, away from prying eyes. It often plays a leading role in the resolution of serious crime even if its ‘hand’ is almost never seen.
It is, therefore, imperative to equip it with the best possible human resources and technological means, supported with updated legal provisions.
The security service needs a new suit, peace of mind it can work serenely that the law is on its side and free from any outside interference.