In a letter to the Prime Minister on July 1, Opposition leader Simon Busuttil asked for an urgent meeting of the Security Committee to assess the administration and policy of the Security Service. This followed an admission by Home Affairs and National Security Minister, Manuel Mallia, that both he and his chief of staff were present for interviews of personnel.
Dr Busuttil said such behaviour was dangerous and undermined the rule of law and the confidence the public should have in the Security Service.
He was scathing in his criticism of Dr Mallia and his top aide, Silvio Scerri. In this newspaper, Dr Busuttil wrote: “Now, when a minister interferes in a matter that, by law, is for the head of the Service alone, you must start wondering whether the service is there to serve you or the Labour Party. What Dr Mallia did is grave and unprecedented and does not happen in a normal democracy without heads rolling instantly.”
The Security Service Act, enacted in July 1996, lays down that the function of the Service “shall be to protect national security and, in particular, against threats from organised crime, espionage, terrorism and sabotage, the activities of agents of foreign powers and against actions intended to overthrow or undermine parliamentary democracy by political, industrial or violent means.”
By law, members of the Service are appointed by its head “under such terms and conditions as may be approved by the minister”.
So, while the minister can ‘influence’ the intake through the terms and conditions he lays down, the law does not empower him or his representative to sit on the interviewing board, not even as a mere observer.
The law further demands that the head must ensure that the service “does not take any action to further the interests of any political party”.
These legal provisions fully support Dr Busuttil’s stand, irrespective of what used to happen in the past. What jars in the Opposition leader’s stand is the statement he made after the meeting of the Security Committee.
Dr Busuttil said that, having been given assurances on all his preoccupation, he could “easily send out the message that the Security Service in our country was and remains one we should have faith in”.
But does he have confidence in Dr Mallia? On the steps of Castille, Dr Busuttil did not go there. However, he did not mince words in his latest contribution to Times of Malta yesterday:
“My expression of confidence in the Security Service does not amount to an expression of support for the Home Affairs Minister. On the contrary, it is precisely because of the Opposition’s disappointment in his conduct and that of his chief of staff that I sought the meeting and the assurances in the first place.”
Why did Dr Busuttil not say so immediately after the meeting? It is possible that the lasting impression he wanted to leave on the public was that the Security Service was trustworthy.
Commendable as that may be, how can he convince the people that the service will continue to be trustworthy under the political stewardship of Dr Mallia and his chief of staff (who appears to have a knack of being present in situations he should not be in)? This is not Dr Mallia’s or Mr Scerri’s secret service.
The Security Service controversy is not over. Further explanations and assurances must be forthcoming.