The government denied in parliament on Wednesday any intention to “politicize the legal system” or violate the principle of separation of powers with the proposal of the Single Point of Contact for the offices of Europol and Interpol.
The guarantee was reiterated several times by the Deputy Minister of Parliamentary Affairs, Ana Catarina Mendes, in a parliamentary debate on the government’s draft law that united all opposition parties in criticizing an alleged attempt to politically control criminal investigations and uphold the rule of law. to fall.
The parties regard this as an unjustified change in the supervision of these international police cooperation offices.
At stake is the diploma that is planned to be handed over to the Secretary General of the Internal Security System (SGSSI), who is directly under the Prime Minister – appointed by him – coordinating the offices in Portugal of Europol and Interpol. now under the jurisdiction of the Judicial Police (PJ), which is autonomous in the criminal investigation.
“Let it be clear that this amendment does not take away any power from a police force. I repeat: it does not take away any power from a police force. […] With these legislative proposals, the head of the PJ of the National Unit of Europol and the National Bureau of Interpol will not only be legislated, but also that it will do so within the framework of the single point of contact, thus avoiding dissemination, duplication and inefficiencies. avoided in the functioning of international cooperation,” said the minister in his first intervention.
Ana Catarina Mendes also stressed that the legislative change is intended to address the concerns of the European Commission, stating that “it is the duty of a Member State to comply with the recommendations arising from the Schengen evaluations”.
All opposition parties opposed the government’s proposal, with the Livre and the Left Bloc having already announced their votes in advance and, like other parties, expressing constitutional doubts and expressing the desire for the law to be reviewed by the President of the Republic would be sent. the Constitutional Court.
Some parties have warned that anyone directly appointed and reporting to the Prime Minister, such as the SGSSI, will gain access to criminal information that may involve political office holders.
In this regard, André Ventura, from Chega, recalled that the current SGSSI is a career ambassador “appointed by successive governments and appointed politically throughout his life”.
For PSD’s Paula Cardoso, this proposal resumes “an old PS obsession” to control justice, which “unequivocally jeopardizes the independence of criminal investigations” through an administrative model.
“The government reveals its purpose in the manner of Louis XIV – ‘LÉtat c’est moi, that is, I am the state'”, the deputy accused, saying that with this proposal the SGSSI will be elevated to a super-police and that it will giving advice on the appointment of directors of other investigative bodies, including the PJ.
This was one of the points most criticized by the opposition during today’s parliamentary debate, which also contested the absence of the Minister of Justice from discussing this proposal, with Ana Catarina Mendes justifying her presence as it was an issue that depended of the Prime Minister and his own portfolio, Parliamentary Affairs.
Pedro Filipe Soares, from Bloco de Esquerda, also said of the possibility of this bill that “the absolute majority will have its way”, but recalled that “the recent history of a prime minister caught in the web of corruption” should make the PS lead to be “more careful”, referring to the famous expression about Caesar’s wife, who is not enough to be, but must also look serious.
For Inês Sousa Real, of PAN, this proposal is “a new blow to the PJ” and “follows dangerous paths of politicization”, questioning whether “there was a failure that justified the change in law”.
André Ventura, from Chega, stressed that the government is appointing the SGSSI, criticized the fact that the diploma was awarded on August 12, when parliament was on vacation, and said he hoped this diploma “will never see the light of day”.
He also defended that the President of the Republic “has a duty” to bring the diploma to the Constitutional Court, as it constitutes “a gross violation of the principle of the separation of powers”.
Source: DN
