Despite a history of courtroom defeats and controversy over its conduct, the DIS has lost just one case before the Intelligence and Security Tribunal out of 23 complaints lodged since 2021
TEFO PHEAGE
The Directorate of Intelligence and Security (DIS) has emerged largely unscathed from complaints lodged with the Intelligence and Security Tribunal, recording just one adverse finding among 23 complaints received since 2021.
The figures, disclosed in a response to this publication, from the Tribunal present a striking contrast with the intelligence agency’s controversial record of litigation before the High Court, where its conduct and exercise of statutory powers have repeatedly attracted loses.
While the figures translate into an adverse finding in approximately 4.3 percent of complaints received, they do not necessarily constitute a 95.7 percent success rate for the DIS, as several complaints were withdrawn, dismissed on procedural grounds or struck out for lack of jurisdiction.
One Adverse Finding
The Tribunal disclosed that it had received 23 cases between 2021 and October 2026, the overwhelming majority involving complaints by former intelligence officers over alleged unfair dismissals.
“The majority of the cases involve allegations of unfair dismissal by Directorate employees,” the Tribunal stated in its written response.
The Tribunal disclosed that five complaints were dismissed after being found to lack merit, two were dismissed for want of prosecution, four were struck out for want of jurisdiction and five were withdrawn at the instance of complainants.
However, only one finding was made against the DIS.
“Of the Complaints received, there has been one (1) finding against the Directorate,” the Tribunal confirmed.
Over 100 Employees
The solitary adverse finding involved a complaint affecting more than 100 employees of the intelligence agency, with the Tribunal ordering the Directorate to pay the complainants.
“The Directorate was ordered to pay sums of money due to the Complainants (over 100 of them),” the Tribunal disclosed.
More significantly, the matter did not end with the ruling.
According to the Tribunal, subsequent allegations emerged that the DIS had failed to comply with the payment order, forcing the complainants to return to the adjudicatory body.
“There were follow up allegations of failure to comply with the Order by the Directorate, which were referred to the Tribunal,” the response stated.
The Tribunal subsequently adjudicated the alleged failure to pay and issued further orders.
It did not disclose the amounts involved, whether the payments were eventually made or whether any sanctions followed the alleged noncompliance.
No Parliamentary Reports
The Tribunal admitted that it has never submitted annual reports since its establishment, further confirming that no report concerning its work has ever been tabled before the National Assembly. Instead, reports on individual cases have been submitted to the Minister for State President.
DIS Cooperation
Despite the complaints brought against the intelligence service, the Tribunal reported that the Directorate has consistently cooperated with its proceedings, adding that there had been no instances in which the Directorate refused to provide information on national security grounds.
The Tribunal also defended its institutional independence,”the Tribunal remains independent as it is chaired by a Judge of the High Court”.
It further disclosed that only two of its decisions have been taken on appeal to the Court of Appeal since its establishment.
Resource Constraints
Nevertheless, the Tribunal acknowledged operational limitations, including its dependence on the Administration of Justice for staffing and other resources.
It also confirmed that it has never undertaken public education to inform citizens about its existence and complaints procedures.
The Tribunal indicated that dedicated resources, including its own budget, personnel and offices, would improve its operations.
“Dedicated resources separate (budget, staff and Offices) from the Administration of Justice would improve the working operations of the Tribunal and afford opportunity to execute mandate more efficiently,” it stated