The existence of covert groups within the framework of national security is common. The capacity to carry out operations discreetly against individuals with criminal and harmful motives is essential for the success of national security intelligence efforts.
While the necessity of secrecy is indisputable, it is imperative that individuals bestowed with such great authority be held to the highest standards to uphold the public’s trust.
The recent shake-up in the Strategic Services Agency (SSA) has left the country struggling to comprehend its underlying causes. However, new revelations have emerged, shedding light on the fact that the Research and Analytical Unit (RAU), a T&T Police Service unit, had been engaged in surveillance of the SSA. This unit, in fact, played a crucial role in exposing the agency’s activities.
Claims that the RAU was operating under the purview of Minister of National Security Fitzgerald Hinds have given rise to further concerns.
During the Senate session yesterday, Mr Hinds faced questions regarding his potential oversight role, in response to which he firmly stated that Police Commissioner Erla Harewood-Christopher remains fully in charge and that any communication to the Executive, including to himself as minister, is routed through her.
While we acknowledge the minister’s reassurance in the Senate, we feel it is important to exercise caution regarding the relationship between spy agencies and political appointees.
This caution applies regardless of the channel through which communication occurs.
Although Commissioner Harewood-Christopher’s oversight of this unit makes its operations lawful, one questions the depth of Mr Hinds’ and the Cabinet’s involvement with this body, given politicians’ past misuse of the country’s surveillance system.
The country needs to understand the specific activities that necessitate a second spy body informing the minister, especially considering taxpayers’ funds are already allocated to the SSA for conducting covert operations.
Given the current crime situation, it is even more difficult to assess the effectiveness of two spy agencies.
This country has had its share of controversy over the operations of secret bodies.
In 2010, the People’s Partnership government uncovered the unsettling truth that the Patrick Manning regime had been employing Israeli spy gear to spy on ordinary citizens. The ensuing parliamentary discussions shed light on the names of politicians, judiciary members, and even journalists who had all fallen victim to wireless eavesdropping.
With the Reshmi Ramnarine debacle in 2011, the tables quickly turned against the People’s Partnership.
This incident brought to light the appointment of an unqualified civilian as the director of the then-Security Intelligence Agency (SIA, now SSA), a decision that then-prime minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar candidly acknowledged as her most significant political mistake at that time.
These are just two reasons why removing all obstacles to public trust in these matters is crucial.
Any political affiliation with covert agencies, regardless of how distant, must be subject to rigorous scrutiny to dispel any concerns regarding the infringement of civil liberties, and no exceptions must be made in the current scenario.
The minister and commissioner are entrusted with meeting the population’s expectations of transparency and accountability in this matter, as the ball once again drops in their court.