However, the document that reached the Assembly of the Republic did not contain these conclusions, according to the Público newspaper. BE accuses the Government of having sent a “technical note” purged of all CIG institutional positions, maintaining only generic references to external experts.
The party also highlights that, in a parliamentary hearing, the minister stated that “there was never an opinion”. However, the BE request points out that the initial request explicitly used the term “opinion”, which it considers a contradiction. “The change in the nature of the document has substantive effects on the information made available to deputies in the exercise of their legislative function”, argues Fabian Figueiredo in the document.
Another point raised is the fact that the complete document only reached the deputies after this hearing, preventing timely scrutiny.
The party now wants the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, Rights, Freedoms and Guarantees to investigate who decided to suppress criticism, clarifying whether the change to the document occurred within the CIG or already in the ministerial office. BE also wants to see explained the terminological discrepancy, scrutinizing why the Government requested an “opinion” (which institutionally binds an entity) and delivered a “technical note” (merely informative). And yet the timing of shipping, given that the document reached deputies after the minister’s hearing, preventing timely scrutiny.
To Expresso, Margarida Balseiro Lopes’ office reiterates that “what was sent to the Assembly of the Republic was the document that was sent by the CIG”.
Leave a Reply