The Directorate of Intelligence and Security (DIS) has declined to comment on its decision to deduct money from its agents who had sued it to pay a law firm that represented them which has raised eyebrows within the intelligence community. Responding to The Telegraph queries, DIS spokesperson, Edward Robert said; �My office does not discuss matters affecting employees of the Directorate with third party. However, it is important to note that our employees rank highest in our priority list. In whatever decision we take that affects our employees, as the Directorate we are always guided by the consideration to the law and the interest of our employees,� said Robert. The result is that tension between the DIS and its spies escalated recently with the agents questioning its decision to pay legal fees on their behalf to the law firm that had represented them against the agency. This has also heightened suspicions that the salary arrears credited into the accounts of over 100 agents by the spy agency is less than what the High Court had awarded them. The agents are part of former government security officers who were redeployed to the Directorate a few years after it was established. The concerned spy agents are accusing the spy agency of dishonesty as they argue that it is unprocedural for DIS as the respondent in their case to pay legal fees on their behalf as applicants. The latest development comes at a time when the DIS is facing a class action from its over 400 agents who are suing it over backpays despite a Court of Appeal order issued against all ministries for salary scale and a subsequent 2008 directive enforcing the order. In a letter addressed to over 100 agents, the Directorate�s finance office informs them that; �Your attention is drawn to case No: TIS 00002/2021 and subsequent court order dated the 4th February 2022.� The letter states that: �Please note that as per the above referenced order, your salary arrears were to be paid into (law firm that represented the agents against DIS) trust account, to enable your attorney to obtain his legal fees.� The letter also states that; However, the money was erroneously paid directly into your personal account on the 5th September 2023.� The agents have dismissed this suggesting that the spy agency is unable to account for their monthly arrears. There are even claims that instead of the agents receiving between P60 000-P90 000, they ended up being paid between P30 000 and P40 000. The letter from the DIS finance office states further that after the money was erroneously credited into the officers� accounts, the law firm that had represented the officers against the agency has �presented the breakdown of your outstanding legal fees to the Directorate demanding payment of same.� According to the letter sent to each agent, �The directorate has settled the amount of P11 301.50 owed by yourself to the law firm.� It further states that; � This therefore, serves to inform you that the amount of P11 301.50 will be deducted from your salary through monthly installments to be decided in consultation with yourselves given your available take home.� �In the event that you retire before the outstanding balance is paid it shall be recovered from terminal benefits,� the letter says. It is understood that the spies then sought an unofficial advice from one of the senior officials at the Administration of Justice. The official advised the spies to request the directorate to furnish them with a breakdown of legal fees. Meanwhile more than 400 employees have filed a summons against the Directorate of Public Service Management (DPSM), the DIS, and the Attorney General. The agents argue that the government�s decision to withhold salary back payments from April 2008 was unlawful. The legal action stems from a prolonged dispute between the employees and their employer regarding the expedited advancement of employees� progression. The agents have previously expressed dissatisfaction, alleging that the DIS has consistently disregarded a court order applicable to all ministries concerning salary scales. Furthermore, they point to a subsequent directive by the DPSM enforcing the judgment, which they claim has been ignored.