Former State Secretary for Infrastructure Hugo Mendes acknowledged this in the parliamentary committee of inquiry on Wednesday [CPI] to TAP who was “unhappy” in comments he made to the company’s former CEO, Christine Ourmières-Widener, about the political importance of changing the date of a commercial flight between Maputo and Lisbon, including PR among the passengers .
“If I was a member of the government, it was because the leader of the government accepted it and, by the way, so did the president of the republic.”
“I am sorry for the comment I shared with the former CEO about the President of the Republic, although I wanted to give someone with whom I had a professional relationship of trust the support that the President of the Republic gave to the difficult decision to make the TAP,” said the former governor. “I have limited myself to sharing an opinion. It was undoubtedly a pity, but I did not give any instructions,” he said. However, acknowledging that he “should not have expressed or shared that opinion, either in substance or in form”, the former ruler assured that it did not come from him “the initiative to ask for anything” and that he was the “recipient of an e-mail”. mail” addressing the former CEO to the “express doubt”. As to who originally requested the flight change, the former secretary said he didn’t know – the mystery remains open.
It was this episode that prompted the Prime Minister to say that had he known about it, Hugo Mendes would have been fired “on the spot”. And Marcelo was also very critical. Hugo Mendes could or could not respond to the Prime Minister’s words this Wednesday at the CPI. He said he wouldn’t do it in the name of “decency values”. But he added: “If I was a member of the government, it was because the leader of the government accepted it and, by the way, so did the president of the republic.”
He also revealed that he and his infrastructure minister, Pedro Nuno Santos, accepted Christine Ourmières-Widener’s request to remove Alexandra Reis from the company’s management, not because they criticized the latter, but only because the restructuring plan of the business had to be carried out. , the CEO felt “empowered”: “The reason is simple: to provide the best terms demanded by the executive leader to execute the restructuring plan. […] What we wanted was to strengthen Christine Ourmières-Widener’s authority as the leader of her team – strengthen, as they say now. [o pedido da ex-CEO] would not only compromise effective functioning, but diminish the CEO’s authority with the team she led”
“The former CEO wanted approval for an agreement that was her responsibility. […] The procedure and formalism would be very different if my signature or that of the minister were involved.”
As for the amount of compensation, he added: “500,000 euros seemed likely to be accepted, not only because it was recommended by the CEO, but because it was a third of the original amount.” [proposto por Alexandra Reis]On the informality that covered communications between the company and the regulatory body, he said it stemmed from the fact that it was a process in which “industry intervention was not required.” The former CEO wanted approval for an agreement that was her responsibility. […] The procedure and formalism would look very different if my signature or that of the minister were involved.’ He did admit, however, that not everything went well, certainly not in communication with Finance. “While there was no legal obligation to communicate between the guardianships, […] the truth is that, as a matter of good political articulation, I should have communicated this situation to Miguel Cruz [ex-secretário de Estado do Tesouro]”.
Source: DN
