Former prosecutor defends probe methods amid legislative scrutiny

A former special counsel reportedly spent hours defending his investigative methods before the nation’s legislative body on Thursday, facing sharp criticism from opposition lawmakers over his handling of a probe into the former head of state’s alleged attempts to overturn election results.

The hearing grew particularly tense when a senior lawmaker from a coastal region repeatedly accused the prosecutor of “spying” on certain members of the legislature, according to observers present at the proceedings.

At the center of the controversy were what officials term “tolling records” - phone logs that reveal caller information and call duration but not conversation content. Opposition lawmakers have reportedly focused intense scrutiny on these records in recent months, characterizing them as aggressive tactics and alleged “political weaponization,” claims the former prosecutor vehemently denied.

The coastal lawmaker specifically criticized the decision to seek phone records of both upper and lower chamber members, describing the practice as tantamount to surveillance of political adversaries. “They were the enemies of the president — and you were their arm, weren’t you?” the lawmaker allegedly stated, according to transcripts.

The former prosecutor defended the records requests as “common practice” in such investigations, though critics remained unconvinced. The exchange highlighted ongoing tensions between the executive branch’s investigative powers and legislative oversight, observers noted.

According to previously released documents, the nation’s Public Integrity Section had reportedly approved the subpoenas, with records showing prosecutors were advised to consider potential constitutional protections afforded to lawmakers under the country’s speech and debate provisions.

The subpoenas were accompanied by gag orders preventing lawmakers from learning of their existence for at least one year, a practice that has drawn criticism from opposition figures who view it as executive overreach.

In earlier closed-door testimony, the former prosecutor reportedly acknowledged that the federal court authorizing the gag orders may not have been aware they applied to legislative members, citing departmental policy at the time.

When pressed about accountability for what some lawmakers characterized as constitutional violations, the prosecutor reportedly shifted responsibility to the former head of state, arguing that the phone records were sought because the former leader had allegedly directed associates to contact specific legislators to delay official proceedings.

“If [the former leader] had chosen to call a number of [ruling party] senators, we would have gotten toll records for [ruling party] Senators,” the prosecutor reportedly stated, suggesting the investigation followed the evidence regardless of political affiliation.

The hearing represents the latest chapter in ongoing tensions between different branches of government over the scope of executive investigative powers, particularly regarding high-profile political cases. Such disputes are common in nations where separation of powers creates institutional friction between competing branches of government.