FIRST, we were told it was all a lie. In denying claims made by Opposition Leader Kamla Persad-Bissessar earlier this month that the Government had acquired special software and had been illegally spying on citizens, the Prime Minister also gave the country a worrying glimpse of his thinking.

'What are you doing that you are afraid the Government would know?' said Dr Rowley, who leads the National Security Council, seemingly dismissing concerns about privacy. 'If you are a legal, law-abiding citizen you would not have that paranoia. Only criminals have that concern.'

Then, as Ms Persad-Bissessar extended her allegations to include claims of spying on the Opposition's recent protests, the Prime Minister advanced a distinction between what he called 'basic police surveillance' and 'spying as a violation of rights and laws.' He did not elaborate.

Next, Dr Rowley suggested to Parliament that a former commissioner of police had acquired 'an interception of communication solution' over the period 2018-2020, but this was not authorised by the National Security Council. The Strategic Services Agency (SSA), we were told, took custody of 'the hardware and software.'

Hours later, former commissioner of police Gary Griffith gave an account which appeared to contradict this, suggesting that the SSA and the police had been working together on the management of the 'cited equipment.' He denied the software involved was of a particular make, but outlined a purported agreement between the police and the SSA which would act as a kind of safeguard against abuse: no one agency could use the tools without the other.

On Sunday, acting Commissioner of Police McDonald Jacob seemed to corroborate this arrangement, but said the tools were no longer in the custody of police, and had not been used before being handed over to the SSA.

Surveillance for national-security purposes is undoubtedly a sensitive matter which means officials cannot speak freely for various reasons.

But because the powers of the State are so invasive in this regard, there is widely acknowledged to be a need for checks and balances. This is why interception legislation stipulates that the Government must report to Parliament on its activities.

But how well is that reporting mechanism working, when official reports are tabled years late?

And what exactly do these annual reports tell us? Do they protect citizens from private actors who may be in breach of the law?

The claims being advanced now suggesting an official went on a frolic and obtained spying tools without authorisation are signs that existing procedures are vulnerable to abuse.

All of this suggests that while we may or may not have a problem with unlawful interception in this country, we certainly have a problem when it comes to accountability.

The post Spy stories appeared first on Trinidad and Tobago Newsday.