Constitutionalist Jorge Bacelar Gouveia understands that “there is no reason to ask for the head of the prosecutors” investigating the designated investigation Influencer and which led to the resignation of Prime Minister António Costa. In recent days, three errors have been made in the indictment order – a poorly transcribed name in a telephone tap that placed António Costa under suspicion, a poorly quoted ordinance and a meeting at PS headquarters that did not take place – and there has been heavy came under criticism. the Central Department of Investigation and Action Penal (DCIAP), led by Francisco Narciso, who monitored the final part of the trial last year. “I know very well, we all know, that the implementation of the functions assigned to the DCIAP by the State makes it an uncomfortable department for some, especially for those who felt beyond any control,” he stated at his inauguration in September 2022. this Deputy Attorney General. It couldn’t have been more accurate.
Bacelar Gouveia, professor of law, spares the prosecutors (João Paulo Centeno, Ricardo Lamas and Hugo Neto) on this point and believes that “only in the case of at least three repetitions of errors in different processes by the same inspectors” an extraordinary inspection could be established by the Supreme Council of Public Prosecutions (CSMP). It refutes the idea that there is a strengthening of control when trials involve sovereign authorities: “I believe that politicians already have their own special forums have rules, which seems appropriate to me. But these rules should neither benefit them – run faster – nor harm them – run slower”.
The President of the Union of Public Prosecutors (SMMP), Adão Carvalho, recalls that, according to the criteria established in the Statute of the Member of Parliament, “extraordinary inspections can only be carried out at the initiative of the CSMP, at any time, or upon request of the Member of Parliament.” at the reasoned request of interested parties, provided that the last inspection took place more than three years ago, or for promotional purposes’. Which rules out this scenario from the start.
Yet a prosecutor responsible for coordinating the MP inspection admitted to DN that “Nothing prevents the DCIAP Director from making such a request to the CSMP, which may, on its own initiative, determine this extraordinary inspection. That’s a lot of mistakes, yes. Too much in a short time and in the same process. With known consequences. There should have been much more care. But the responsibility of the DCIAP director cannot be taken away. You have to know the process without interfering, but with your knowledge and experience.”
Adão Carvalho points out that “inspections cannot be determined with regard to specific processes. What is different is the existence of certain conduct that can determine the disciplinary responsibility and then the CSMP can establish a preliminary investigation and ultimately conclude that it is a disciplinary matter, it can initiate a disciplinary investigation against the magistrate. This is certainly not the case.” Furthermore, he emphasizes that “the parliamentary magistrates are regularly scrutinized by a body that includes representatives of the AR and the MJ, and that they are the subject of disciplinary investigations that have established sanctions when they are not fulfilling their obligations. I hope that all sectors have done so. this audit.”
Faced with the consequences of this process, which is still under investigation, he emphasizes that “The fall of the government is a political fact and not a judicial or parliamentary fact. On the other hand, the facts strongly accused and confirmed by the investigating judge are serious enough.” He sees no evidence that these errors, if they exist, have any relevance to the process, or that they have the relevance they want to ascribe to them. These are techniques to distract from what is essential, sold by those who are interested in them, and emphasized by the media out of some naivete.”
Another constitutionalist, who requested anonymity, disagrees with Bacelar Gouveia, stating that “There is material to initiate this extraordinary inspection or an internal investigation processmainly because of the consequences of the case and the duty of care, which must be respected and which may have not been fulfilled. decided after everything has been determined”.
In his analysis, he contradicts Adão Carvalho’s idea that prosecutors have more control criticizes that the MP statute is “very protective” of magistrates. “And it does something that seems to me wrong, which is not provided for in the Constitution and which is a clear comparison between parliamentary magistrates and judges, while they have completely different functions. The Constitution itself stipulates that the government has a say in defining criminal justice policy. The Member of Parliament behaves here as if he is simply completely independent, on the contrary. And even in this statute, the standards of responsibility are always something very distant, very diffusethat is, so that in practice there is no question of responsibility,” he emphasizes. “The Assembly of the Republic looks at this judiciary and did not want to face the problems, out of fear,” he warns.
The DN asked the PGR and DCIAP whether an extraordinary inspection would be proposed in the Influencer process, but received no response.
More disciplinary penalties in 2022
In 2022, the Supreme Council of Public Prosecutions (CSMP) analyzed 48 investigations and 16 disciplinary proceedings, imposing ten disciplinary sanctions: four warnings, four fines, one suspension from practice and one dismissal. According to the Public Prosecution Service’s Activity Summary Report, in 2022 more disciplinary investigations were registered in the last three years: 48 compared to 29 in 2021 and many others in 2020. In terms of the number of disciplinary proceedings, 2022 registered a total of 16, lower than 2021 ( 25), but higher than 2020 (12). Over the past three years, 36 disciplinary penalties have been recorded: seven in 2020, 19 in 2021 and 10 in 2022, with warnings and fines being the most common penalties.
Source: DN
