THERE have always been suspicions that telephone-bugging was a commonplace practice in Cyprus, dating back to the turbulent 1960s when concepts such as individual freedom and the right to privacy were unheard of. This was a time when the police routinely abused their powers without having to answer to any authority. There were no controls or checks on the exercise of state power, and phone-tapping was just one of the many forms of repression to which individuals were subjected.
Things have changed radically since those days. Today, democratic values are deeply rooted in society while everyone knows about their rights and the limits of state power. We have now gone to the other extreme – police could be charged with violent behaviour if they as much as push a suspect into a police car. This is not say that abuse of power no longer takes place – foreign workers and illegal immigrants, frequently report state officials of heavy-handedness and arbitrariness. But the fact that some complaints are reported and investigated is proof that great strides forward have been made.
But old habits die hard and it would be naive to think that all abuses of power have been eliminated. With regard to phone-tapping, allegations were made repeatedly against the authorities over the last decade. The late former president Spyros Kyprianou publicly accused the authorities of monitoring his telephone conversations, while similar allegations were also discussed in parliament. None of these allegations were ever substantiated, but revelations of the discovery of a bugging device in the office of the Interior Minister, suggest that these were not as fanciful as had been thought at the time.
The bugging device had been found three months ago, but the government thought it wise not to make an issue out of the discovery. First, the discovery would reflect badly on the state and highlight the lack of any security at ministers= offices. Second, it would further undermine public confidence in the police, which has been at pains to improve its image and standing in the community (the police would be the prime suspect for obvious reasons). Third, it would be impossible to find out who had planted the device and when, considering the ministry of justice moved into its new premises more than two years ago.
Under the circumstances, the government=s decision not to publicise the matter was justified, as long as the matter was not leaked to the media. It was a risk and when the story hit the news three months later, the government was put in a difficult position. Why had it not ordered a criminal investigation at the time and instead hushed the discovery, opposition politicians asked. This pressure led the president to order an investigation which, nevertheless, is unlikely to come up with any answers.
This incident, however, should serve as a reminder to citizens. We may have made big strides forward since the sixties, but there is still some way to go before the authorities can be fully trusted on certain issues. In this context, the legislature’s repeated refusal to pass legislation that would allow the police to monitor telephone conversations of known criminals was correct. Such a right could be granted only when we are certain that it will not be abused, and we have not reached that stage yet.
