This Wednesday, the PSD sent a request to the Prime Minister with 15 questions about the performance of information services on the night of the recovery of the laptop of the former deputy for infrastructure, asking António Costa whether he “authorised, approved or accepted” these steps .
The PSD justifies the request for clarification – announced by President Luís Montenegro on Tuesday – by considering that “irresolvable contradictions between various relevant actors” continue on the events of the night of April 26 at the Ministry of Infrastructure, stressing that the Prime Minister Minister “has direct supervision and responsibility over the information system of the Portuguese Republic and the information and security services and services (SIRP / SIS) and that nothing that happened could have happened without his knowledge and prior consent, simultaneously or later”.
“In the event that something has happened without the Prime Minister’s reporting, even if it is tacit, the Prime Minister has a duty to exercise full administrative and political responsibility,” the Social Democrats further consider.
So the In particular, PSD wants to know “when and under what conditions” António Costa was informed by Minister João Galamba of the use of information services to recover the computer of former deputy Frederico Pinheiro.
“The Minister of Infrastructure stated that it was the Prime Minister’s Under-Secretary of State who proposed the intervention of the SIRP/SIS. What was the basis for this suggestion, when did it happen and under what conditions?” the party also wants to know, I ask still wonder when António Mendonça Mendes was contacted by João Galamba.
“When you were informed by one of them or by a third party, did you authorize, approve or accept that decision, even tacitly?” the PSD asks António Costa directly.
The Social Democrats still want to know “what is the legal, concrete and precise basis on which the SIRP/SIS intervention was based” and whether the Prime Minister “maintains the version that there was a ‘computer theft'”.
“If so, how do you explain the legitimacy of the SIRP/SIS intervention?” he added.
On the other hand, the PSD wants to know the degree of risk of information stored on Frederico Pinheiro’s computer that would justify an intervention of the “secret”.
“In view of the doubts expressed publicly and by various specialists, and given your responsibility for the SIRP/SIS, what steps have you taken to investigate and verify the intervention of the SIRP/SIS, the respective legality and adequacy of procedures? “, PSD deputies also want to know.
Another PSD question is why the PSP and the judicial police were not charged with “the conduct of the process and decision-making and steps towards possible intervention by the SIRP/SIS”, as both structures were contacted that night.
“The judicial police carried out another risk assessment – not an urgent one – to the point that they did not contact the deputy in question until the morning of the following day. Need for immediate action?” the party asks.
The Social Democrats also want António Costa to explain “the apparent lack of coordination between the actions of the various armed forces and security or information services”, why no attempt was made to recover Frederico Pinheiro’s mobile phone and why a . document “containing the relevance and sensitivity of the ‘TAP Restructuring Program'” would only be stored on an assistant’s laptop.
The PSD recalls that during the parliamentary hearing at the TAP Commission of Inquiry, the Minister of Infrastructure said that “before April 26, he already had suspicions about the behavior of former deputy Frederico Pinheiro, namely for ‘making photocopies in the late hours of the night'”.
“Was this reported to the SIRP/SIS at some point? When did the SIRP/SIS become aware of the suspicious activities of Frederico Pinheiro as a former deputy? Did the SIRP/SIS carry out specific investigations into Frederico Pinheiro prior to his resignation ? If so, what? were the results of that study?”
Finally, the Social Democrats want to know whether “all information [guardada no computador do ex-adjunto] was classified as confidential under legal terms” and “who had the right to know and why”.
Source: DN
