Estonian security agency defies calls for accountability in high-profile case
A dispute over accountability within Estonia’s Internal Security Service (ISS) has intensified after the agency refused to apologize for its role in a high-profile criminal case. The controversy follows the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the acquittal of former police officials, yet the ISS maintains its stance despite growing criticism.
Public calls for transparency have gone unanswered, while officials focus instead on broader security measures in the face of the 2026 crisis.
The conflict began after the Estonian Supreme Court confirmed the acquittal of former police officials on January 2, 2024. Three days later, Minister of Justice Liisa Pakosta issued a formal apology to the cleared officers on behalf of the state. However, the ISS has yet to follow suit, deepening concerns over its lack of accountability.
Interior Minister Lauri Läänemets admitted he only learned of the dispute after the criminal case had already started, suggesting failures in internal reporting. Meanwhile, ISS Director General Margo Palloson dismissed calls for an apology in an interview with Delfi journalist Vilja Kiisler, questioning what the agency should even be sorry for.
Critics argue that the ISS’s refusal to acknowledge mistakes undermines public trust, especially given allegations of double standards in its actions. Security experts note that admitting errors is not a sign of weakness but a necessary step for agencies to rebuild credibility. The agency’s current communication strategy—prioritising proactive measures like cyber defence and infrastructure protection—has done little to address these concerns.
Elsewhere, officials such as Bavaria’s Joachim Herrmann and Federal Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt are emphasising strengthened police presence and hybrid threat responses. Yet in Estonia, the ISS’s silence on this specific case continues to raise questions about transparency and the kind of rule of law the public expects.
The ISS’s decision to avoid an apology leaves the agency at odds with both legal outcomes and public expectations. With the Supreme Court’s ruling already in place and the justice minister having issued a state apology, the agency’s refusal to address its role risks prolonging distrust.
How the ISS handles accountability in the coming months may determine whether it can restore confidence in its operations.
