On December 23, the Lithuanian Parliament passed a package of amendments to the law that expand the powers of the country’s intelligence agency. The new rules give the service broader capabilities in the area of national security.

The amendments were supported by 68 Seimas deputies; there were no votes against, but 8 parliamentarians abstained.

The changes clarify that the intelligence’s mission includes not only forecasting risks and identifying threats but also eliminating and neutralizing them.

In exceptional cases, when there is information about a threat that could harm national security and state interests, intelligence officers are granted the right to conduct surveillance of individuals and their correspondence without prior court authorization, to break into premises and vehicles, and to track the movement of financial flows. In such a case, the head of the intelligence agency or his deputy must apply to the court within 24 hours for permission to continue the actions.

If permission is not granted, the intelligence must immediately cease actions, inform the intelligence inspector, decide on data collection, and destroy the collected information.

Control and oversight mechanisms

Under the new rules, intelligence officers will be able to secretly collect biometric data – fingerprints, voice samples, scent, and other biometric characteristics – as well as purchase explosive substances and devices. The use of explosive materials and devices, as well as standard-issue firearms, is allowed only in exceptional cases when it is absolutely necessary.

Additionally, to prevent threats, intelligence services may enlist assistance from the main departments of criminal intelligence. The changes apply to employees of the Department of State Security and the Second Department of Operational Services of Lithuania.

Although expanding the service’s powers increases its security capabilities, experts emphasize the critically important oversight mechanisms and compliance with legal frameworks to preserve the balance between national security and citizens’ rights.

Comments are closed.