Panama’s National Police (PN) have officially confirmed that they deploy “undercover agents” as part of their operations, while firmly rejecting accusations that they use “infiltrators” against social movements. The clarification comes after a coalition of human rights and labor organizations formally accused the force of operating a surveillance network targeting activists and union members, escalating a dispute that has now reached both the Attorney General’s Office and the United Nations.
What Happened
In September 2026, a coalition of human rights and labor groups — led by the Pueblo Unido por la Vida alliance — filed a formal complaint with the Office of the Attorney General of Panama. In a parallel move, the organizations submitted a joint letter to UN Special Rapporteurs, raising their concerns internationally after what they describe as evidence of state espionage against civil society.
The National Police responded with a public statement dismissing the espionage accusations as “baseless.” However, in that same statement, the force made a careful terminological distinction: it acknowledged the use of “undercover agents” while denying the use of “infiltrators.” The distinction has become the focal point of the controversy, with critics questioning whether the two terms describe materially different practices or simply different labels.
Background
The complaint lands amid a period of heightened tension in Panama over the limits of police power, the transparency of state intelligence activities, and the government’s response to social demonstrations. Public protests have been a recurring feature of Panama’s recent political landscape, with unions and civil society alliances frequently organizing around social and economic grievances.
For civil society organizations, the distinction between an “undercover agent” and an “infiltrator” is central. Undercover policing is a recognized law enforcement technique generally associated with criminal investigations. Infiltration, by contrast, implies agents embedding themselves within social movements or unions — a practice that, if directed at lawful protest activity rather than crime, raises serious concerns about freedom of association and expression.
By taking their complaint to UN Special Rapporteurs — independent experts who examine alleged human rights violations worldwide — the Pueblo Unido por la Vida alliance and its partners have signaled that they believe domestic channels alone are insufficient, and they are seeking international scrutiny of Panama’s policing and intelligence practices.
What This Means for Panama
The episode places a spotlight on the transparency of Panama’s security apparatus at a moment when public trust in institutions is already strained. The National Police’s admission that undercover agents are deployed — combined with its denial of infiltration — leaves open the question of how the force defines and oversees such operations, and under what legal authority they are conducted.
The Attorney General’s Office now faces the decision of whether to open a formal investigation into the complaint. Any such probe would likely need to establish whether undercover operations extended beyond criminal investigations into surveillance of lawful social and union activity — the core allegation made by the coalition.
The involvement of UN Special Rapporteurs adds an international dimension. While their communications do not carry binding force, they can apply diplomatic pressure and shape how Panama’s human rights record is perceived abroad.
For observers, the key developments to watch are the Attorney General’s response to the complaint, any further clarifications from the National Police about the scope and oversight of undercover work, and whether additional social organizations come forward with similar allegations. The outcome could have lasting implications for the balance between security operations and civil liberties in Panama.
This story was originally reported by Newsroom Panama.