Security And Accountability Are Not Mutually Exclusive!

The ink has barely dried on a three-week old controversial legislation amending the 2013 Prevention and  Suppression of Money Laundering and Financing of Terrorism Proclamation when Parliament decided to nix its widely panned  clause granting undercover agents blanket immunity from prosecution for crimes committed “beyond their control” or “without their authorization” during covert operations—except for murder. While the fact that Parliament’s Standing Committee on Legal and Justice Affairs, which initially justified the passage of the offending provision, defended its repeal comes off as ironic, the rescindment of the clause hopefully marks a significant turning point for the country’s legal and democratic trajectory. Critics have vociferously argued that such immunity provisions undermine accountability and open the door to abuse. The repeal thus offers crucial lessons about balance, oversight, and the importance of safeguarding human rights within law enforcement operations.

Initially, the clause was introduced with the purported goal of enabling security agencies and undercover investigators to operate effectively in complex environments—fighting organized crime, terrorism, and corruption without bureaucratic or legal hindrances. By providing wide-ranging immunity, the law aimed to allow agents to conduct covert operations more freely. However, the language was overly broad and lacked clear boundaries, risking unchecked discretion, potential misconduct, and human rights violations. Critics contended that such immunity could be exploited by security personnel to carry out illegal searches, detentions, or even extrajudicial actions under the guise of confidential investigations. It also posed a serious threat to the rule of law, as agents could act outside legal bounds without fear of accountability, fostering a culture of impunity.

Parliament’s decision to revoke this clause demonstrates the government’s recognition, which many believe was prompted by vehement public outcry, of the fundamental importance of constitutional protections, the rule of law, and human rights. Removing a provision that essentially granted impunity has, at least symbolically, reaffirmed its commitment to accountability and properly regulated law enforcement conduct; it underscores that effective security and investigation efforts do not have to come at the expense of human rights; instead, they require clear legal frameworks, oversight, and respect for due process. This decision also sends a compelling message to security institutions and agencies: that lawful conduct and accountability are vital components of national security. It establishes a precedent that extralegal or secret measures cannot substitute transparent, rights-respecting procedures—embracing the principle that security and justice are mutually reinforcing.

Parliament’s action offers valuable lessons for policymakers, law enforcement agencies, and civil society globally—especially in contexts where security imperatives are weighed against human rights and the rule of law. First laws granting investigative powers must be precise, limiting authorities to clearly defined actions and circumstances. Overly broad immunity clauses create loopholes, which can be exploited or lead to abuses. The move highlights the importance of crafting legislation that balances operational flexibility with legal safeguards. Even in the most sensitive investigations, mechanisms must be in place to ensure oversight—whether internal reviews, independent judicial scrutiny, or parliamentary checks. Immunity without accountability is a recipe for impunity and erosion of democratic standards.

Aside from these the repeal unmistakably sends the message that security measures grounded in respect for human rights enhance the legitimacy and effectiveness of law enforcement. Disregarding rights can breed community mistrust, fuel grievances, and ultimately hinder security efforts. Doing away with the veritably indefensible clause hence exemplifies the importance of maintaining this balance. It also drives home the point that broad public debate and civil society engagement can reveal the potential misuse of legal provisions and foster reforms aligned with democratic principles. Transparency in lawmaking fosters trust and ensures laws serve the public interest. Furthermore, the need for regular review and reassessment of security laws cannot be overstated. Such regulations should not be static; they require periodic review to adapt to changing circumstances, lessons learned, and emerging human rights standards.

Acknowledging the follies of rushing into adopting ill-considered laws and rectifying legal overreach enhances both national security and human rights. While the repeal is a positive step which stops a dangerous precedent in its track, the government must now focus on institutionalizing accountability measures, fostering transparency, and building trust with its citizens. It is therefore incumbent on it to recognize that security and accountability are not mutually exclusive and that strong, rights-based legal frameworks, oversight, and transparency are the pillars of a resilient democracy. Towards this end it must see to it that law enforcement agencies operate under clear guidelines rooted in human rights standards, with independent oversight bodies empowered to investigate misconduct. It must also engage civil society and victims of past abuses to ensure that security laws serve the collective interest without compromising individual rights.