Manning said last week no law-abiding citizen had anything to fear from wire-tapping. He was responding to the revelations by his successor, Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar of widespread illegal wiretapping by the SIA. She said a wide net of law-abiding citizens, including members of the judiciary, were targeted by the SIA. The list included President Max Richards.
In a media release Thursday, the Judiciary, which is headed by Chief Justice Ivor Archie, stated that it considers Manning's "bold assertion" insulting, adding that it "displayed a shocking disregard for the rule of law".
The statement vigorously denounced the "systematic and widespread electronic surveillance of private citizens by an agency known as the SIA",
Archie called on the present People's Partnership Government to "take steps to ensure the destruction of all illegally obtained material under the supervision of an independent third party".
The statement added further that the partial list revealed by Persad-Bissessar in parliament last Friday made it clear that the SIA's activities went beyond the boundaries of criminal investigations.
"Given the broad sweep of the SIA's surveillance, one is driven to the conclusion that the only rational explanation for some of the "wiretapping" is that it was conducted with the hope of acquiring 'negative' personal information that might be used as leverage," it said.
It added: "In the case of the Judiciary, the inevitable consequence would be an undermining of its independence and the proper administration of justice."
The Judiciary noted that judges were subject to Special Branch vetting before appointment and were not exempt from legitimate enquiry by lawfully constituted agencies where that is warranted and duly authorised.However it said, "What cannot be tolerated is any arbitrary intrusion into anyone's private affairs with no legal or legislative foundation."
"The Judiciary is appalled by the apparent nonchalance with which it has been asserted that law abiding citizens had nothing to fear and that a mandate had been given to the SIA to monitor only those who came to its attention as a result of genuine criminal investigations," the statement said.
It said the implication of that assertion, "which the Judiciary strongly rejects", was that if anyone was the subject of surveillance, then it must have been for a "justifiable reason".
The Judiciary noted that there was no system in place of auditing or supervision to ensure that the SIA stayed within its "mandate".
"In the circumstances there can be no basis for the bold assertion, which is insulting and displays a shocking disregard for the rule of law. Instead the SIA was permitted unauthorised, unwarranted and untrammeled access to the private affairs and communications of a wide cross-section of the population, amounting to a most egregious violation of privacy," the Judiciary stated.
No comments:
Post a Comment