The Supervisory Board of the Information System of the Portuguese Republic (CFSIRP), the body responsible for overseeing the activities of the secret agents, must explain the involvement of the SIS in the recovery of the computer that was stolen last week. the ministry has been stolen from Infrastructure by the ex-deputy Frederico Pinheiro. Who defends him is former chairman of this supervisory body, Jorge Bacelar Gouveia, who qualifies as “deplorable” the lack of explanation about this case and the contours of the intervention of the intelligence services.
“Faced with the doubts that have arisen in public opinion, I am very sorry that the body responsible for the inspection has nothing to say about this,” he told DN Bacelar Gouveia, defending the need to clarify whether the information services acted in a context of illegality in last week’s events.
As DN discovered, SIS has already provided clarification to the Supervisory Board on its own initiative. The DN tried yesterday without success to contact the chairman of the CFSIRP, the deputy and former minister Constança Urbano de Sousa, as well as Mário Belo Morgado, also a member of this organization. The CFSIRP is composed of three members elected by the Assembly of the Republic and one of its duties is to oversee and monitor the activities of the SIS.
“This is not a matter for the SIS”
Last Wednesday, after being relieved of his deputy duties, Frederico Pinheiro went to the Ministry of Infrastructure to collect the computer assigned to him. his statement last Saturday the Minister João Galamba. Subsequently, and since the computer contained a “broad collection of secret documents”, the Ministry contacted the PJ and the SIS.
Jorge Bacelar Gouveia has no doubt that the situation described is a police matter, without any framework for the intervention of the intelligence services. “This is not a matter for the SIS,” he says, rejecting the argument of the Minister of Infrastructure. “Retrieving a computer, even to prevent a state secret from being breached, is a police activity, not an intelligence activity”, says the former chairman of the Supervisory Board. The fourth article of the Framework Law of the Information System of the Portuguese Republic, which defines the scope of activity of these services, stipulates that the agents of the intelligence services “shall not exercise powers, perform acts or perform activities within the scope or specific competence of the courts or entities with police functions”.
Another point that the former president of the CFSIRP leaves no room for doubt is that the Ministry’s Chief of Cabinet (who, according to Galamba, contacted the SIS on his advice, after the Minister had consulted other members of the government) did not have the authority to to call case information services. “A chief of staff could never call the SIS, he is not authorized to do that,” says Bacelar Gouveia, bearing in mind that these services depend on the prime minister. Under the law, it is up to the Chief Executive to “supervise, protect and direct the actions of the intelligence services”, a power that has not been delegated, so that even a minister could not activate the SIS.
With Valentina Marcelino
Source: DN
