Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar's revelations about the extent of wiretapping undertaken by the Security Intelligence Agency (SIA) prompted strong reactions from persons identified as subjects of this surveillance as well as those who have a vested interest in the lawful operation of justice in Trinidad and Tobago. Among those making a statement on the issue was the Judiciary of Trinidad and Tobago. In a statement to the media on November 18, the Judiciary sent a note of "Grave concern over electronic surveillance" regarding the revelations by the Prime Minister.
On the surface of things, many of the concerns expressed by the Judiciary are entirely in alignment with those articulated by the general public and more specifically, those who have been named and others who have reason to suspect that they have been included for no good reason on this list of observed persons. Clearly, part of the reason for this statement from the Judiciary is its concern that members of its august ranks were part of this surveillance project and, as it noted in the release, there are legitimate concerns that such actions might lead to "an undermining of its independence and the proper administration of justice." In its haste to express concern over the wiretapping issue, however, the Judiciary may have overstepped its role from the administration of justice to the influencing of matters likely to come before its own courts.
By November 18, several of those named on the SIA's wiretapping list were said to be considering their legal options in the situation, putting the Judiciary as an institution on notice that the illegal wiretapping exercise might be migrating from a matter articulated to give political offense to specific legal challenges of the authority of the SIA to gather information about private citizens. While the Judiciary may have done nothing in contravention of the laws of this country in expressing its own grave concerns about the issue, it may have opened the door to the possibility of a challenge to its capacity to stand in independent judgement of the matter should it become a specific court case against the SIA's actions. Further, there are elements of the statement which might be construed as being political, which could not possibly have the intention. The Judiciary has taken a clear stand against the wiretapping issue in its media release, and while the reasons for the statement are undoubtedly justified, the end result of making them may be far less salutary.
The wiretapping issue is, without question, an inflammatory one. People have had their right to privacy casually trammelled with little or no reason and no serious justifications have been forthcoming. Recordings are said to have disappeared, leaving empty files behind for investigators to puzzle over. Not only has there been illegal surveillance, but those observed have no guarantees that the material gathered is even available to the government for destruction. This is a time for elder, sensible heads to prevail and for the rule of law and the highest sense of ethics to drive the matter forward. The Law Association has offered the government clear advice on the Interception of Communications Bill, 2010 and the Prime Minister and Opposition Leader agreed on Friday to establish a committee to quickly review the bill with a view to creating a document that both parties can agree on and pass in Parliament.
These are critical matters that are necessary to move national security past the mistakes of the past to a more acceptable situation in which the reasonable expectations of law-abiding citizens are balanced by the necessity for surveillance of suspected criminals. For its part, the People's Partnership Government, having opened the wiretapping issue to public scrutiny must institute an alternative that improves national security performance while respecting the rights of private citizens that remains enshrined in our constitution.