In a meeting behind closed doors last week, the House legal affairs committee finalised a bill that would allow the secret service (KYP) to listen in on people’s telephone conversations without the need of a judge’s approval, which had always been a legal requirement in the past.

If the bill is approved on Thursday – something very likely considering only Akel opposes it – it would give the power to the head of KYP to order the tapping of the telephone of any person he decides poses a real or imaginary threat to national security. The decision would not have to be authorized by a judge or cleared by the attorney-general who, according to the bill, would be kept in the dark about the KYP chief’s actions.

The only obligation the KYP chief would have under the new law would be to inform a three-member supervisory committee appointed by the government within 72 hours of taking the decision. Could anyone believe that a trio of government appointees could offer any safeguard against abuses of power by KYP? The fact is that the committee’s role would be to rubber-stamp any decision taken by chief of KYP rather than exercise any form of control and supervision. This is why the committee will be informed about the phone tapping 72 hours after it commences.

It was rather disappointing that only Akel opposed this bill, which provides excessive powers to an appointee of the executive without any accountability. The Cyprus Bar Association took a stand against the bill which “weakens in practice every effective control and creates an increased risk of abuse.” It also noted that the proposed law deprived a citizen of the right to appeal against being listened to by the authorities, a right guaranteed by all democratic countries.

The final wording of the bill, agreed by the committee members, was that in “extremely serious” or urgent cases, the head KYP would be able to give instructions for phone tapping without a judge’s approval. Who will decide whether a case is “extremely serious” or urgent? The same person that has the power to order the phone tapping and is, in effect, accountable to no-one. He is certainly not accountable to a three-member committee of government appointees who will be informed three days after the phone tapping was ordered.

The justification for the law, which would give excessive powers and no accountability to an official appointed by the government, is the safeguarding of national security. But what is the guarantee that the KYP chief would not use these powers to listen in on the telephone conversation of political opponents of the president? As long as the KYP chief claims that the political rival posed a threat to national security, tapping his phone would be justified. Not that he would be obliged to inform anyone about his phone tapping decisions as he needs no approval from anywhere and accountability is not a requirement.

This bill must not be passed as it poses a real threat to our democracy and makes a mockery of rule of law.