The Ministry of Infrastructure and Housing clarified on Friday that Pedro Nuno Santos is not in an incompatibility situation in the Temacal case, invoking an advice from the Advisory Council of the Public Prosecution Service requested by the government in 2019.
In a message to Lusa, the ministry referred to a 2019 opinion concluding that there are no incompatibilities in this case. The response from the Ministry of Infrastructure and Housing comes after the observer reported that a company owned by Minister Pedro Nuno Santos and his father had benefited directly from a government contract.
“What is at stake now, as in the previous news, are contracts signed by entities covered by the Public Procurement Code and Temacal-Equipamentos Industriais, SA, a company whose share of the Minister of Infrastructure and Housing is limited up to 1% and less than 50,000 euros, and therefore does not fall under the obstacle provided for in paragraph 2 of Article 9 of Act No. high public office”Advanced.
According to the document published in the Diário da República, the holders of political offices or high public offices throughout the country are not allowed to “participate in public procurement procedures” or “intervene as consultants, specialists, technicians or mediators” when they exercise function management, and companies owning in a percentage greater than 10% of the respective share capital, or whose share capital exceeds 50 thousand euros.
It is important to note that in cases where the holdings are not owned by the holder itself, they should only be relevant when referring to subscriptions opened or pending under the direction, supervision or protection of the body of the State in which the holder of a political office holds a position, which is not the case with the Vocational Training Center for the Footwear Industry, and any issue of incompatibility related to the questions posed is immediately jeopardized,” the ministry stressed.
The ministry also recalled that “by prohibiting participation in all public tenders by companies owned by relatives of political office holders, it would disproportionately violate the freedom of private economic initiative, ultimately implying its unconstitutionality – for violation of member 2 of Article 18 of the Constitution of the Portuguese Republic”.
Source: DN
