What actually happened in the Riigikogu yesterday that led to the misunderstanding between Interior Minister Igor Taro (Eesti 200) and MP Raimond Kaljulaid?

In reality, there was no misunderstanding between the interior minister and Raimond Kaljulaid. Rather, the interior minister presented statistics related to surveillance activities in Estonia to the Riigikogu Security Authorities Surveillance Select Committee. Looking at those figures naturally raised questions for me and for other committee members as well, some of which the minister was unable to answer.

Instead of returning to the ministry, clarifying the issues raised and then submitting the answers in writing — which is very commonly done in such cases, since a minister is a high-level strategic political leader and is not expected to know every technical detail — Minister Taro attempted to classify the surveillance statistics that had been presented to the committee, retroactively designating them as information intended for internal use only. During the committee meeting, however, he himself was unable to say whether the information was classified or not.

By now, at least I have found the same information that the minister tried to classify on the Ministry of Justice website where it has in fact been publicly available to everyone for years. What happened here was that, instead of submitting to parliamentary oversight and answering questions, the executive branch attempted to conceal or limit the spread of statistics that were uncomfortable and raised questions. That is not right. This is not how matters should be handled in a state governed by the rule of law.

In Minister Igor Taro's case, this is not the first time the Ministry of the Interior has tried to send the message that others simply do not understand things the way they should. In fact, he himself posted the link to the statistics on his social media account later that evening, after the public war of words had already begun. What does this say about our minister?

It is very strange when a minister comes to the Riigikogu, presents data, then later tries to claim that the data is secret or that access to it should be restricted and a few hours afterward announces that the same information is actually freely available online. The link he shared in fact only concerned statistics from the past year. Had the minister spent a little more time on the Ministry of Justice website, he would also have found the reference to statistics from previous years that he showed to the committee.

Taken together, the whole story is rather difficult to understand. It is unclear what exactly happened inside the ministry, what kind of advice the minister was given or whether he acted entirely on his own. What matters, however, is that the data which raised questions is now indeed publicly available and we should be discussing the substance of the issue. We have also submitted a written inquiry to the minister, in which he must explain the attempt to classify information that has been posted on the ministry's website. He has 10 days to respond, so let him explain why he made such a decision.

In all likelihood, his decision was unlawful because the law prohibits designating such general statistical overviews for internal use only. He must explain how the law was interpreted in this case in a way that would allow this information to be treated as having restricted access.

One more question about Igor Taro. If something like this had happened in Germany, France or Sweden — where an interior minister declares data secret even though it is actually publicly available and later personally shares the same data publicly — would that minister have remained in office?

In countries with well-developed parliamentary democracies, parliament would under no circumstances accept attempts to conceal information from it or obstruct parliamentary oversight. In the United Kingdom, a minister in such a situation would almost certainly have resigned by now at the request of the prime minister and the same would probably apply in the Nordic countries and elsewhere in Western Europe.

Unfortunately, parliamentary oversight and parliament in general are very weak in Estonia, which is why parliamentary questions routinely go unanswered here. This is one weakness of our political culture and, regrettably, it leads to fairly significant problems in state governance coming to light only after considerable delay, when fixing them has already become very time-consuming and costly. Parliamentary oversight and scrutiny are extremely important for identifying mistakes or shortcomings in the executive branch as early as possible, when resolving them is still simpler and requires fewer resources and less time.

Turning now to the timeline of these figures, one pattern clearly emerges. If we look back nearly 10 years, significantly more people under surveillance (by law enforcement agencies – ed.) were notified in earlier years, from 2017 to 2019 — roughly two to three times more. Now, the number of people under surveillance increasingly overlaps with the number of people directly affected by that surveillance. For example, if I were under investigation and called you, then in principle you too should be notified that our conversation had been recorded. Is there a broader cause for concern here?

Yes. Put very simply and briefly, the statistics shown by the minister to the committee — which are also confirmed by the data publicly available on the Ministry of Justice website — do indeed show that while such notifications were issued significantly more frequently between 2017 and 2019, they have been issued much less often over the past six years. There has even been at least one year in which fewer people were notified than the number of people who were wiretapped, covertly monitored or otherwise subjected to surveillance measures under court authorization.

At this point, I do not know the reason for this. There may be objective or technical explanations that account for the trend and if that is the case, the executive branch must present those explanations to the Riigikogu and to the public. However, it may also indicate that something has changed in the way records are kept and notifications are issued.

The most important thing is that parliament must ensure that the law is being followed. Those individuals who are legally entitled to receive notice that the state has intercepted their communications — and we are talking about people who have not broken any laws or acted against the state, meaning individuals whose fundamental rights have been affected in the course of criminal proceedings that do not directly concern them — must receive such notification. They must have the right to review the information the state has collected about them. This is an extremely important principle tied to fundamental rights and the constitution. The Riigikogu, the public and those working more closely in this field must be confident that the state is complying with the law and fulfilling its obligation to notify people.

That is why the figures I have also highlighted on social media simply need to be explained. I do not rule out the possibility that there are technological or procedural reasons behind this, and if there is an objective explanation, then everything is fine. But if convincing explanations are not provided, the matter should be examined more closely and the question should be asked whether the state is in fact fulfilling its obligations to its citizens.

If a person under surveillance speaks with their child's teacher and arranges a time for a parent-teacher meeting, would the law require that teacher to also be notified that the conversation had been intercepted?

The Prosecutor's Office or the investigative authorities themselves can probably answer that question in greater detail. As I understand the law, in such a case notification would not be required because the privacy of the other participant in the conversation would not be significantly affected simply by the state possessing a recording of a discussion arranging the time of such a meeting.

But let us imagine, for example, a situation where surveillance devices have been installed in the home of a person suspected by the state. Their spouse, partner or perhaps a casual acquaintance is also present there. In such a case, the state may have unintentionally and indirectly monitored that person in a way that significantly infringes upon their right to privacy. It is important, first, that the person be informed of what happened, and second, that they have the opportunity — if they wish — to review exactly what information was collected about them and what conversations were intercepted. They should have the reassurance of knowing what third parties may or may not know about them, rather than continuing to live with uncertainty.

We have also discussed this issue in the committee. In criminal cases involving members of the Riigikogu, it has emerged that other Riigikogu members — and even government ministers — who communicated with MPs under investigation did not receive any notification. The Prosecutor's Office has explained to us that, under its current interpretation of the law, there is no such obligation to notify those individuals.

I believe this is a question the Riigikogu should consider carefully. For example, if the prime minister or the president had their conversations intercepted — not because they themselves were suspects, but because they communicated with someone who was under suspicion — should they be notified? Should members of the Security Authorities Surveillance Select Committee themselves be informed if they have been subject to surveillance? Or do we accept that no such notification needs to be sent and that this may occasionally happen? That is also an issue worth discussing.

We also know of the case involving attorney Carri Ginter whose phone calls were intercepted because another person was under surveillance and the police were unwilling to show him those recordings. In the end, he was told that yes, he could listen to them, but only if he traveled to Pärnu, even though he lives in Tallinn. In reality, we are seeing an unwillingness among the authorities handling these matters to release the data or establish proper order because at the moment it seems they are operating in very murky waters.

That is true. The Carri Ginter case is a good example and the relevant institutions should discuss these issues together with attorneys and legal experts in order to organize matters in a way that does not unnecessarily make people's lives more difficult. Secondly, important constitutional principles that must apply in judicial proceedings also need to be safeguarded.

Defense attorneys must be able to do their work and they must have equal opportunities compared with the prosecuting side. If lawyers' work is made excessively complicated and time-consuming, we also see legal bills rise dramatically. If the state ultimately loses in court, this can result in significant damages that must be compensated. On the other hand, it also makes it extremely difficult for people to defend their rights. In Estonia, a very large number of criminal cases end in plea agreements because many people realize they do not have the financial means or time required to go through a full court process and defend their rights. These are important issues and they have also been discussed in various Riigikogu committees.

For example, Carri Ginter has been criticized for raising these questions on the grounds that he is defending the interests of his clients. My response has been: he is a lawyer — whose interests should he be defending, the prosecution's? Naturally, attorneys stand up for their clients and they are supposed to. In a state governed by the rule of law, it is a fundamental principle that people have the right to legal protection. These matters should be organized in such a way that no one's life is made more difficult than necessary. After all, we live in a digital state and we have every opportunity to manage these processes far better than they are currently being managed.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and X and never miss an update!