Dear friends, good day to you all!
Cases like this wiretapping scandal don’t just go away. They don’t end with a signature on a dismissal order. They aren’t erased by administrative actions, nor are they swept under the rug with institutional formalities citing “lack of new evidence.”
They simply move to the next level.
The wiretapping case has already gone through this cycle more than once. It came under the scrutiny of the judiciary, went through archiving, resurfaced through court rulings on specific aspects of it, fueled political conflict, and today returns once again to the institutional forefront with calls for investigative committees and a new parliamentary inquiry.
The image of “closure” is convenient. But it is not real. Because it does not concern an isolated case of private misconduct. It concerns a mechanism that, according to judicial developments and a series of public revelations, is linked to the surveillance of political figures, journalists, senior Armed Forces officials, and business leaders. That is, with the core functioning of the state and, potentially, national security. And such cases are not “closed” simply because an institutional body decides so at a specific point in time.
The recent dismissal by the Supreme Court attempts to project an image of normality. That the investigation has been completed, that the evidence is insufficient for further criminal inquiry, that this chapter can be considered formally closed.
But reality is more resilient than procedural formulas.
Because at the same time, there are convictions against private individuals involved in a surveillance system. There are appeals pending. There are parliamentary requests for a new investigation. And there is a body of allegations and findings that have not been exhausted either politically or institutionally.
This is the first head of the hydra: the illusion of a definitive resolution.
Every time an attempt is made to impose the idea of “the end,” a new layer of unresolved issues emerges. A new aspect of the case file, a new parliamentary initiative, a new judicial development.
The second head is the ongoing judicial process itself. The Court of Appeals. Where cases are not treated as political narratives, but as living fields of evidence. Witnesses are re-examined. Evidence is re-evaluated. The certainties of the first judgment are not a given. And this means that nothing has been definitively decided.
The third aspect is the political and institutional footprint. The Investigative Committees. Not as a procedural alibi, but as a forum for revisiting the critical questions: who knew what, when, at what level, with what degree of tolerance or involvement. And above all: what mechanisms allowed such a system to operate without timely institutional intervention.
This is where the crux of the matter lies. Not in the individual technical details, but in the structure of power and the way it is controlled—or not controlled.
The wiretapping scandal is not an episode to be recorded and filed away. It is a layer of mistrust that has already become embedded in the functioning of the institutions. And such layers cannot be removed with a single act. Society does not forget simply because it is asked to forget.
And institutions are not restored simply because it is declared that they have been restored.
The Lernaean Hydra of wiretapping is exactly that: a phenomenon that multiplies every time an attempt is made to contain it. In courtrooms. In parliamentary proceedings. In public debate. In the questions that persist. And as long as even one critical question remains unanswered, there is no real end.
There is only a postponement of the next round.