The PS refuses to advance the procedure for the dismissal of the “secretary” of the supervisory board

This Wednesday, PS rejected IL’s request to appoint a rapporteur to give an opinion on the dismissal process of the Supervisory Board of the Information System of the Portuguese Republic (CFSIRP).

Last week, IL asked the Commission on Constitutional Affairs, Rights, Freedoms and Safeguards to appoint a rapporteur to rule on whether members of the “secrets” Supervisory Board should be dismissed following their parliamentary hearing.

This request was denied this Wednesday, with PS voting no, PCP abstaining, and PSD and IL voting yes.

The proposal comes after a debate at last Wednesday’s commission meeting about whether the process to fire CFSIRP has already begun with the approval of another Liberal statement and subsequent hearing by CFSIRP members.

On that day, SDP and IL argued that the process had already begun, as the steps prescribed by law had been followed, without appointing a rapporteur to prepare an opinion, while PS and Chega believed that this was not the case.

The 1984 SIRP Framework Law establishes that “The Assembly of the Republic shall be responsible for reviewing impediments, as well as for deciding on dismissal, after an opinion issued by the competent committee on constitutional matters, rights, freedoms and guarantees after hearing the case.” member, by a two-thirds majority of the deputies present, but not less than the absolute majority of the deputies in office.

That discussion continued this Wednesday, with 1st Commission President Fernando Negrao indicating that “the process has been closed and the request now submitted by IL has reopened it”, arguing that after hearing three members of the CFSIRP, an assessment followed whether “a rapporteur should be appointed, so that members of the Supervisory Board can be replaced.”

“I looked at the deputy and asked her whether the process had ended there or not, and the answer was that it had not yet been clarified, and the fact that it had not been clarified led to the conclusion that either she would not submit it, or she would not submit a petition yet. on the appointment of a rapporteur,” the social democrat added, also recalling that last week another petition from Chega to start the process of dissolving the CFSIRP was rejected.

In response, MP Patricia Gilvaz stated that IL indicated that this was not clarified and that the dismissal process “should continue” with the appointment of a rapporteur to prepare an opinion that would later be voted on.

“The president never asked if IL wanted to end the process on this,” he said, believing that Fernando Negrau “should have been very clear about which process to follow,” since it has no precedent and “is not written anywhere, clearly” .

The Chairman of the Committee on Constitutional Issues, Rights, Freedoms and Guarantees then emphasized that the deputy “is obliged to know the law, interpret it”, emphasizing that it is not her duty to “teach deputies to make interpretations.” legislation.

Deputy Pedro Anastasio from PS reiterated that “PS never considered that this procedure had been initiated” and, in his understanding, the hearing held “was a preliminary hearing in order to initiate” a possible dismissal procedure, defending that IL should have “accurately clarified the purpose of your request.”

PSD MP Monica Kintela pointed out what she sees as the difference between the two requests, stating that Chega “should have started the procedure” while the purpose of the IL is to ensure “the continuation of what was” started.