Parliament has repealed a controversial legal provision that exempted undercover investigators from criminal liability for offenses committed in the line of duty—excluding murder. Critics argued the clause could be interpreted too broadly and undermine the rule of law.
The provision was originally part of the Proclamation on the Prevention and Control of the Crime of Laundering Proceeds of Crime and Financing of Terrorism, which amended a 12-year-old law and was approved by Parliament on June 10, 2017 E.C.
Under the original text, “a person assigned to carry out undercover investigations or to perform arrests under cover shall not be subject to criminal prosecution for any criminal act committed while on duty, for reasons beyond his/her control and against his/her will, except for the crime of murder.”
This clause faced strong criticism from opposition party members and human rights advocates, who warned it could enable abuses of power, weaken accountability, and lead to serious human rights violations.
When it was introduced, the House of People’s Representatives’ Legal and Justice Affairs Committee defended the provision as necessary to make “special investigations more effective.” The Standing Committee justified it by arguing that officers using “special investigative methods” were acting in the public interest and needed legal protection to carry out their duties without fear of prosecution.
However, concerns over the vague language and potential misuse of the exemption persisted. At a special session of the House of Representatives on Monday, June 30, the Standing Committee formally submitted a resolution to repeal the clause.
Ato Isa Boru, deputy chairman of the committee, explained to Parliament that the provision risked being interpreted too broadly and could negatively impact the law’s enforcement. He emphasized that since the amended proclamation had not yet been officially published, the repeal was being submitted in time to remove the problematic clause before implementation.
The repeal aims to ensure that the legal framework for combating money laundering and terrorism financing remains robust, transparent, and consistent with human rights standards, without offering blanket immunity to law enforcement officers engaged in covert operations.
