Journalists and experts have sounded the alarm over draft legislation in Cyprus that would allow for court-ordered surveillance of journalists and their acquaintances in an attempt to uncover their sources.
Key Points
- Cyprus’ government eyes sweeping powers over journalists
- Proposed legislation to implement EMFA allows spyware and surveillance
- Journalists and stakeholders say the bill undermines the very principles the EMFA aims to preserve
- The Bar Association described the draft as “unconstitutional and paradoxical”
This can also include the use of spyware, a search of a journalists’ home and workplace, as well as that of their colleagues and close contacts, if the attorney general seeks a court order to do so.
The provisions are included in legislation prepared by the interior ministry as part of the obligation of the EU member states to implement the regulation of the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA), however stakeholders warn it goes the opposite direction.
The draft bill obtained by CIReN allows for officials including the head of the secret service, police chief and “any other investigator or authorised official” to request from the attorney general a court order that will require journalists to reveal their sources.
It also authorises the attorney general to request a court order mandating the surveillance of a journalist, their colleagues, or any individual in their circle who may have information about the reporter’s sources.
All of the individuals can be surveilled, their property and workplace searched, with an ultimate aim of identifying “journalist’s sources or confidential communication.”
Should the above measures not suffice, spyware can be installed on their devices.
The Bar Association has opined that the draft is unconstitutional and paradoxical, as it broadens the scope of the ‘exception to the rule’ premise that goes hand-in-hand with surveillance.
“While for all other citizens the interception of their communication will not be permitted but for five offences, it will be permitted for journalists, who should have an increased level of protection.”
Head of the journalists union Giorgos Frangos said Cyprus’ draft bill twists the essence of the EMFA. Expressing his staunch opposition to the draft, he said it undermines investigative journalism and this cannot be accepted “as it penalises journalists’ work and forces them to reveal their sources”.
Christophoros Christophorou, Council of Europe expert on media told CIReN that “the transposition into the Cyprus legislation system is done in a way that clearly deviates from the EMFA.”
“Instead of introducing regulations to protect freedom of expression and freedom of the press, the draft is mainly limited to derogations and their criminalisation.”
Following initial reactions from stakeholders last week in the Parliament, the interior ministry agreed to hold a meeting with them on Tuesday.
Head of the Ethics Committee Elli Kotziamani also said that “the main provisions of EMFA to protect journalists freedoms are neglected with the aim to manipulate the media and put obstacles to the mission of journalists”.
Criticism over ‘limited’ public consultation
Where the EMFA is concerned, though the regulation was adopted in April 2024, stakeholders only received the draft legislation a month ago and were told to provide written responses in 15 days.
Journalists and other stakeholders demanded a substantial public consultation on related issues of media and press freedom as the existing legislation is completely outdated and never implemented in practice. The discussion “should have taken the form of a structured and meaningful dialogue, not an exchange of letters” said Nicholas Karides, director of the IMME, the Cyprus Institute of Media.
But despite strong opposition and a warning from the Bar Association that certain provisions are unconstitutional, the ministry has refused to withdraw the bill, agreeing only to present a revised version and stick to the August deadline. “We will come back with a revised version to meet the deadline of August and avoid consequences of not implementing the EMFA”, George Mathiopoulos, director of the Ministry of Interior told CIReN.
Public interest nowhere to be found
Though the EMFA does forbid efforts to uncover journalistic sources it does allow for surveillance, spyware or an obligation towards a journalist to reveal their source under some circumstances.
Where the wording differs between the EMFA and Cyprus’ draft legislation is that the EU regulation, Article 4, stipulates it must be “justified on a case-by-case basis by an overriding reason of public interest and is proportionate.”
This clarification however is absent from the draft law submitted by Cyprus’ government, Christophorou pointed out.
“This condition is completely absent from the draft, while the term ‘public interest’ is not mentioned anywhere.”
As such, this leaves the door open to “abuse of power and violation of press freedom and editorial independence.”
Absent from Cyprus’ draft legislation to harmonise with the EU law are the safeguards set out in the EMFA wording. Specifically, the latter stipulates “sources are tantamount to ‘raw material’ for journalists: they are the basis for the production of media content, in particular news and current affairs content.
“It is therefore crucial that journalists’ ability to collect, fact-check and analyse information be protected, in particular information imparted or communicated confidentially, both offline and online, which relates to or is capable of identifying journalistic sources.”
Growing problem
Compounding the fears over Cyprus’ press freedom, is that another legislative amendment is still in the works that risks journalists facing prosecution and prison, if the attorney general alone determines their work is fake news.
The International Federation of Journalists warned of the “chilling effect” this would have on press freedom in Cyprus, which dropped 10 points in 2024 on the press freedom index according to Reporters Without Borders. The country currently ranks at 65th out of 180 countries, down from 55th place in 2023.
UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression Irene Khan warned last year that the proposed amendment would “lead to a self-censorship that is contrary to the interests of any robust and healthy democracy.”
“Punishing fake news with prison sentences and other criminal consequences are not in line with international human rights standards or good practices in the field of countering disinformation,” she said.
The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) also opined on the matter at the behest of Akel MP Irene Charalambides amid widespread fury that the government had tabled legislation that could leave journalists facing prison.
The OSCE concluded the legislative amendment has “serious shortcomings in terms of compliance with international human rights standards” which could potentially lead to public officials abusing this power.
“The mere possibility of imposition of a criminal sanction, be it a mild fine, still risks having a chilling effect on the exercise of freedom of expression.”