What did Carlos César ask for (“The need to see, ministry by ministry, sector by sector, whether or not there is a need for some refreshment (…) because “some of these ministers fell short of expectations””); what Alexandra Leitao thought (“Something needs to be done within the government that can undergo renovation”); what Vitalino Canas observed (“It’s a government in which the good guys and the bad guys have been caught in a spiral that I’m not sure they can recover from”); and not even what Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa left as a warning, the day João Galamba became Minister of Infrastructure and Marina Gonçalves became Minister of Housing, dividing the previous ministry in two (“O criterion has to do with the silver of the house not to touch too much of what exists. We shall see. If that works, it’s a good idea, if it doesn’t, we draw conclusions.”) was enough for António Costa to present to the President of the Republic a “broad renovation” or “politically significant as a government source admitted to DN that it was predictable that it would happen the moment Pedro Nuno Santos left the government.
“The president still has no room for more than speaking. And still don’t see an alternative”, explains the same source.
The predictable in the first week of January – and in those days Marcelo argued that “the year 2023 is very important, it is the year in which we will see if there is the effectiveness that we want in the implementation of European funds and in the progress of the country. If necessary, change the government, change the government. If what has already changed is enough for that, we’ll see if it is enough” – he was reduced to adjustments.
But there was a warning. “My feeling,” said Marcelo, “is that [Costa] he preferred the idea of choosing the one that moved the least, believing that less time was wasted (…) or he chose the path of taking advantage of a situation like this to innovate or to continue go and move as little as possible. He chose the second way, it is the prime minister who chooses and when choosing, of course, depending on the results, it will be a success or not. It will fall on the prime minister”.
And fell. Galamba who on the 29th last week understood “to have all the conditions to participate in this government”, but after Tuesday’s meeting with Costa – in the morning there was “pressure from Marcelo, on Expresso, asking for his departure -, from the Prime Minister’s meeting with Mariana Vieira da Silva, Ana Catarina Mendes, Duarte Cordeiro, Pedro Adão e Silva, Fernando Medina and Deputy Secretary of State António Mendonça Mendes, and the meeting of the Head of Government with Marcelo, resigned, after 8 p.m., because “noise overrides the facts, the truth and the essence of the board”.
“I resign despite the fact that at no time have I acted against the law or against the public interest which I have always promoted and defended in my role as a public official, as has been fully and publicly acknowledged by the Prime Minister. I reiterate all the facts I presented at a press conference about the events that took place and I confirm that I have always provided the TAP Parliamentary Inquiry Committee with all the documentation I had’ he wrote in the statement.
Less than an hour later, António Costa announced at a press conference that he was refusing the resignation announced and “urgently” and “unanimously” requested by “commentators and politicians”. “It was easier to accept the resignation, but in good conscience I could not accept it,” he explained. And praised the minister: [A demissão] “it is a noble gesture which I respect, but cannot conscientiously accept”.
The Prime Minister supported all the arguments put forward by João Galamba at the April 29 press conference guaranteed that he confirmed “all the facts” reported by the Minister of Infrastructure. “I am convinced that I made the right decision.Costa said.
Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa, Costa’s long conference was still in progress, made it clear, in a statement that “disagrees with the position” of the prime minister “regarding the political reading of the facts and the resulting perception by the Portuguese, regarding the prestige of the institutions governing them”.
Costa explained a few minutes before that giving in to “commentators”, “to public opinion” meant joining “populism” guaranteed until, in the case of the SIS intervention, he knows nothing – because he tried everything to find out, he guaranteed – means that something was done “outside the law”.
Marcelo has the absolutely opposite opinion: “The Minister of Infrastructure tendered his resignation today, citing weighty reasons related to citizens’ perceptions of political institutions. The Prime Minister, who is responsible for presenting this request to the President of the Republic, has, out of conscientious objection, decided not to do so, despite the situation he considered deplorable. The President of the Republic, who cannot exonerate a member of the government without a proposal from the Prime Minister, disagrees with his position regarding the political reading of the facts and the resulting perception on the part of the Portuguese with regarding the prestige of the institutions they govern”.
Prior to Costa’s statement, it was not in Marcelo’s plans to comment.
SIS playing the police? Deputies want explanations
Joao Galamba, April 29: “I reported the fact [o alegado roubo] and they told me [refere-se à ministra da Justiça] that my office would communicate these facts to those two authorities [SIS e PJ], which we did (…) And given that that computer had a large collection of secret documents, my chief of staff did what she had to do. Reported this fact to the competent authorities: State equipment with secret documents has been stolen from the Ministry of Infrastructure and it is my duty to report this fact”.
Antonio Costa, May 1: “SIS was not called upon to intervene. There is a theft of a computer with secret documents, the cabinet of the minister did what it had to do, alerted the authorities and the authorities acted accordingly. I was not aware and did not need to be, no one in the government instructed SIS to do this or that, SIS acted in accordance with the warning it received and within the scope of its legal powers.”
Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa, May 1: “Certain particularly sensitive topics do not have their treatment held in the public square and are not in the spotlight of the media. They are treated, they are treated until you see that they have been treated (…) Here, in the case of a sensitive issue, of national importance, the treatment had to be discreet (…) things happen, they happen and then it is verified that they happened”.
And what happened can happen? Fernando Negrão, deputy PSD, magistrate, former director of the PJ, has no doubts: “SIS has no police powers. Looking for an object, whatever it may be, even if it is a computer with confidential documents and state secrets, it cannot be the SIS (…) If in fact nothing has been requested from the SIS, there is a coordination problem here and there is an even more serious problem: we have to ask SIS if it thinks it has powers of a criminal nature (…) GNR, and bodies responsible for collecting and processing information”.
Rui Pereira, former director of the SIS, former interior minister, understands the same thing: “O SIS is an information service.”
Jorge Bacelar Gouveia, a constitutionalist and former chairman of the Supervisory Board of the Secretaries, is equally clear: “IThis is not a SIS matter (…) Retrieving a computer, even to prevent violation of a state secret, is a police activity, it is not an activity of the intelligence services (…) they cannot exercise powers, perform acts or carry out activities within the scope or specific jurisdiction of the courts or entities with police functions (…) A Chief of Staff could never call the SIS, he is not authorized to do so.”
Unlike Costa, who says he wasn’t “informed and [que] it didn’t have to be” and that “no one in government instructed SIS to do this or that, SIS acted in accordance with the warning it received and within the scope of its legal powers”, says Jorge Bacelar Gouveia it is for the prime minister alone to “supervise, protect and direct the action of the intelligence services”, not least because this power, which is not delegated. That is, “A chief of staff could never call the SIS.”
Or, as BE says in the request for an urgent hearing with the Secretary General of the Information Service of the Portuguese Republic (SIRP): “The Security Information Service [SIS] It is not a criminal police body, it has no power or authority to carry out raids or searches and is bound by the law and the Constitution of the Portuguese Republic.”
BE, PSD, PAN and LIVRE requested an urgent hearing from the secretary general of SIRP, with the last three parties also requesting to hear the director of SIS about the involvement of information services in the recovery of the computer attributed to the former Deputy Minister of Infrastructure.
The PAN also wants clarification from the Minister of Infrastructure, João Galamba, and his former deputy Frederico Pinheiro.
Chega, on the other hand, asked to hear from the SIRP supervisory board, the SIS director, the Ministers of Infrastructure and Justice.
The Supervisory Board of the Information System of the Portuguese Republic clarified this Tuesday that it has requested information on its own initiative regarding the intervention of the SIS in the case of the recovery of the computer attributed to a former government deputy with classified information.
As DN learned on Monday, SIS had already provided clarification to the Supervisory Board on its own initiative.
Source: DN
