The government risks committing a crime of qualified disobedience if it refuses to send the legal advice on which TAP was based to the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry (CPI) to dismiss then-CEO Christine Ourmières-Widener and former chairman Manuel Beja for just cause, according to lawyers heard by Dinheiro Vivo. After the first refusal to deputies, the executive now has 10 days to issue such advice. If it does not comply, PSD, Chega and Bloco de Esquerda (BE) threaten to file a complaint with the Public Prosecution Service.
The arguments put forward by the government for refusing to send the advice changed during the day. In a first stage, and after a request from the Social Democrats to request such a document, the Ministry of Infrastructure, headed by João Galamba, justified the refusal by temporarily excluding the facts from analysis by the CPI. The letter states that in the resolution that formed the CPI, “the object was delineated and, as well as the time horizon (period between 2020 and 2022)”, as the request is outside the scope of the CPI. In fact, the legal opinion refers to the dismissal for cause announced on March 6 this year, in a press conference, and carried out on the 13th, dates later than those stated in the custody explanation. Presidency Minister Mariana Vieira da Silva used the same argument during a parliamentary hearing that took place in the morning.
But the justification turned out to be inconclusive, as the legal diploma does not set any time limits. According to the resolution of the Assembly of the Republic, the purpose of the CPI is “to evaluate the exercise of political supervision over the management of TAP SGPS and TAP, SA, particularly in the period between 2020 and 2022”. This means that the investigation of events after 2022 will not be prevented, as is the case with dismissal for valid reasons.
Later, the Deputy Minister of Parliamentary Affairs, Ana Catarina Mendes, played the thesis of “the protection of the public interest”. In a note sent to the Lusa bureau this Wednesday, the minister’s office claimed that “the opinion in question does not fall within the scope of the parliamentary committee of inquiry” and “its disclosure poses risks to the legal defense from the point of view of the state”.
Given the government’s intransigence, the CPI met in an emergency this Wednesday afternoon, ahead of the scheduled hearing of TAP Remuneration Committee Chairman Tiago Aires Mateus to take a position. The president of the CPI, Jorge Seguro Sanches, said he would “insist that the document be provided in the terms and conditions” of the Commission’s regulation. “Since this reasoning has not been sent to the Assembly of the Republic”, the socialist called for “an urgent request for the justification of the public interest in question”. PSD, Chega and BE assured that if the government does not send the advice to the CPI, they will file a complaint with the prosecution against the government, which then risks a crime of aggravated disobedience.
Lawyers consulted by Dinheiro Vivo explained that the CPI has similar powers to investigative authorities. The government cannot therefore refuse to provide the documents requested by that authority. In addition, the argument of public interest and confidentiality also falls away, since, as with so many other parliamentary committees of inquiry, the executive can send classified documents, so that only the deputies of that committee can have access, and their disclosure to third parties is prohibited.
Dinheiro Vivo questioned the ministries of Parliamentary Affairs, Infrastructure and Finance about the reasons why the government refused to send the advice to the CPI, but received no response until the end of the edition.
Paulo de Sá e Cunha, Christine’s attorney, suspects the existence of legal flaws in the executive’s justification for dismissal for cause.
Paulo de Sá e Cunha, the attorney for Christine Ourmières-Widener, in statements to SIC Notícias this Wednesday, defended the importance of the said opinion: “It was quite important for a reason that I find curious and interesting that the communiqué of the Cabinet of the Minister of Parliamentary Affairs says that the reason that led the government not to provide this document to the CPI is that it could bring home the defense of the interests of the state”. From a lawyer’s perspective, this argument “raises questions that make the legal basis somewhat weak” of the dismissal for cause of the former CEO and former chairman of TAP. In fact, Paulo de Sá e Cunha “sees no other reason for not disclosing the opinion that is not related to such weaknesses in the legal basis of these decisions to dismiss the directors of TAP”, he stressed.
Revealing that he was not aware of the legal advice, Paulo de Sá e Cunha states that he only had access to the “report of the General Inspectorate of Finance (IGF), which was made public after the press conference of finance ministers and Infrastructure, and the resolution of the shareholders of TAP SA and TAP SGPS”. According to the justifications for the dismissal for good cause mentioned there, Christine Ourmières-Widener and Manuel Beja violated the legal and statutory norms of the Statute of the Public Manager by proceeding with the termination agreement of Alexandra Reis and with the respective compensation of a half million euros, without convening a General Meeting of TAP shareholders, nor prior notification to the Ministry of Finance. That is, the green light to pay the compensation of Pedro Nuno Santos and Hugo Mendes is invalid.
Dinheiro Vivo Journalists
Source: DN
