Lawmaker seeks to limit intelligence oversight body’s remit

Lithuania’s parliament has begun considering a proposal to narrow the remit of intelligence controllers, who warn it could limit their ability to investigate and inspect cases fully, LRT reported.

The amendment, proposed by Social Democrat Tomas Martinaitis, would exclude oversight of intelligence agencies’ internal administration from the controllers’ investigations. Parliament approved it at the initial stage this week, with 49 votes in favour, five against and 33 abstentions. The National Security and Defence Committee and the Human Rights Committee will consider it next.

Martinaitis said intelligence controllers should focus on areas where the special powers granted to protect national security create the greatest risk of human rights violations. He argued that other mechanisms, including internal audits and the National Audit Office, already oversee internal administration.

He said the proposal would separate oversight of intelligence and counterintelligence activities from scrutiny of agencies’ administrative decisions, which he described as an inefficient use of the controllers’ role. He also said independent oversight of intelligence agencies was essential in a democratic state governed by the rule of law, but that the overall system of institutional oversight should be clear, proportionate and effective.

Democrat Agnė Širinskienė cited the State Security Department whistleblower case. A parliamentary inquiry found that potential members and supporters of presidential candidate Gitanas Nausėda’s team had been checked at his request. She said the intelligence controllers’ oversight function was introduced to prevent such cases, and that the Constitutional Court had found no problem with the function.

Dainius Gaižauskas of the Lithuanian Farmers and Greens Union said the proposal would weaken the controllers’ powers. He asked Martinaitis who had requested or proposed the change.

The Intelligence Controllers’ Office also warned that the amendment could restrict its work. It said internal administrative activity cannot always be separated from human rights protections or questions about the legality of intelligence agencies’ work.

The office added that administrative decisions, procedures and organisational principles can affect the legality of intelligence officers’ actions, the protection of human rights and the effective investigation of possible violations. It warned that the change could create gaps in oversight if human-rights issues were formally classified as internal administration and therefore excluded from independent review. The office said internal administration includes personnel matters, personal data processing and document management.