Concerns are mounting over proposed changes to Cyprus’ surveillance legislation, particularly efforts to remove judicial oversight as a key safeguard, lawyers said on Monday.

The amended bill is expected to be brought before the House plenum for a vote on Thursday.

According to Akel MP Andreas Pasiourtides, following a recent closed session of the House legal affairs committee, a majority appears to be forming in favour of allowing the Cyprus secret service (KYP) chief, in certain cases, to bypass the courts when seeking authorisation for surveillance.

Instead, under the proposed framework, KYP would be required to seek approval within 72 hours from a three-member committee for the continuation of surveillance measures.

Related Articles

The committee would be appointed by the council of ministers.

Lawyer Simos Angelides warned that such a shift raises serious concerns constitutionally protected human rights.

“There are certainly risks, and the attempt – without clear justification – to remove the supervisory role previously exercised by the courts is both striking and troubling,” he said.

He stressed that even in cases involving national security, any decision to proceed with surveillance should be subject to prompt judicial review.

“Even if an initial decision is taken, it should be placed before a court for approval within a short timeframe – perhaps within 48 hours – not before a committee appointed by the executive,” he said.

Referring to earlier stages of the debate, Angelides said the initial proposal had been to transfer oversight powers to the attorney-general, an idea that was ultimately rejected following party objections.

The current proposal, he added, represents an “intermediate solution”.

In such a scenario, Angelides argued, the executive branch would effectively exercise full control without independent scrutiny.

“This is not a criticism of the executive per se, but rather a recognition of the need for institutional safeguards,” he said. “Without them, there is a real risk that citizens’ rights could be affected improperly.”

Separate concerns have also been raised by the Cyprus Bar Association, which stressed that any surveillance measure must be subject to prior approval by a judicial or other independent authority.

It also called for explicit protection of legal and journalistic privilege, the safeguarding of the right to challenge surveillance orders, and the establishment of clear and strict limits on the exercise of such powers.

On the issue of removing the right of individuals under surveillance to challenge the legality of an order, Angelides was unequivocal. “Under no circumstances should a person be denied the right to contest the legality of such a measure,” he said.

At the same time, he described as “correct and prudent” the proposal to expand the categories of offences for which surveillance may be authorised, noting that previous limitations had created gaps in prosecutions.

With the bill requiring at least 38 votes to pass, due to its constitutional nature, Angelides said it should proceed – but only after problematic provisions are addressed.

“There must be a proper balance between protecting citizens’ rights and allowing law enforcement to carry out its duties effectively,” he said.

“Anyone could become a victim of misuse,” he said, posing the question: “Who guards the guards?”