The President of the Republican Assembly asked the Transparency Commission to request the signature of Chega MP Francisco Gomes, who asked other MPs, but without identification, to demand payments to the TVDE sector association.
In this article dated January 27, 2019, at which office in Lusa you have access, José Pedro Aguiar-Branco asks the Parliamentary Commission for Transparency and the Statute of Deputies to continue the investigation of the reported facts and to be able, if he understands, to issue recommendations that we consider appropriate in this situation of our statute conditions.”
José Pedro Aguiar-Branco distinctive logo to follow that the relevant final report must be resolved “for the purpose of recognition and consideration of the possible transfer of the elements to the competent judicial authorities”.
In the fourth quarter, the President of the Assembly of the Republic was informed of the request for election presented by the Associação Nacional Movimento TVDE, addressed to the President of the Comissão de Infraestruturas, Mobilidade e Habitação, in the order of the statements made. Chega representative Francisco Gomes sees other representatives who are not named.
After a hearing in the Committee on Infrastructure with the association Somos TVDE held on December 18, this member of the Chega parliamentary group said that “the deputies of the political party in the absence of this committee [de Infraestruturas] we requested the payment of millions of euros to the TVDE sector association in order to support the implementation of the approved legislation”.
According to Chega’s ata representative Francisco Gomes stated the following: “Then we fear that party MPs feel the need to ask the TVDE association for 20 million euros to understand how to circumvent the legislation that was passed by the majority. Let’s vote for her, we’ll bypass her later. Do you know what it is? Joke. This is the expulsion of MPs who feel this commission,” he declared.
For the Speaker of the Parliament “because the confirmed signatures pronounced in the parliamentary seat, at a public hearing and not during the exercise of the mandate, are subject to special institutional effects, because we attribute to the deputies of the Assembleia da República led, which, to confirm, could have criminal relevancewe stand for the integrity, honesty and legitimacy of the performance of the parliamentary mandate and are prone to damage the prestige of the Parliament of the Republic”.
José Pedro Aguiar-Branco warns, however, following the logo that “it is equally important to underline that Such an accusation does not correspond to the truth, its public formulation without specific identification of monuments or objective indications of reality is equally susceptible to institutional censorship.cause serious and undefined concerns of the deputies and thus contribute to the erosion of citizens’ trust in democratic institutions and the collective prestige of the Parliament of the Republic as a sovereign body”.
Request for an inquiry from the Transparency Commission, José Pedro Aguiar-Branco also asked the General Secretariat of the Assembly of the Republic “that the diligence in obtaining the images collected by the parliamentary channel regarding the intervention of the deputy Francisco Gomes took place after the referral of the parliamentary hearing, as well as its presentation to the Parliamentary Committee de Transparência e Estatuto dos Deputados, in efeitãitos de efeitos de efeitos.”
The President of the Assembleia da República requests “to communicate this information to the Commission for Infrastructure, Mobility and Housing”.
From the point of view of José Pedro Aguiar-Branco, “simply influenced by the nature and limits of the specific competences of the Transparency Committee (..), factual clarification” within the framework of the parliamentary investigation “does not and cannot exclude the possible criminal relevance of the actions in the given case”.
“Provided that sufficient indications have been found from the practice of the facts constituting the crime, this circumstance does not pre-empt the refusal of participation and the elements found by the competent judicial authorities or that will be determined in time”, accrescenta-se no despacho.
Leave a Reply