PS declares that there has never been a refusal to submit documents on TRP and that conclusions should be drawn only at the end

The coordinator of the PS of the PVP investigative commission said on Friday that there was never a refusal to transfer documents, arguing that the facts should be ascertained now, and then there will be political conclusions.

This position was put forward by the Socialist MP Bruno Aragao after this morning in Parliament Chega, IL, BE, PCP, PAN and Livre criticized the government’s controversy regarding the possible existence of an opinion that justifies the resignation of the executive presidents and the Council. TAP management, requesting additional clarification from the manager.

In the presence of journalists, the coordinator of the penitentiary commission for investigating the activities of the TAP leadership defended the thesis that so far “there has never been a refusal to submit documents.”

“The commission requested a package of documents, the Government responded to the commission, the commission realized that this answer did not fit into its understanding and took steps with the Government. This happened at the initial stage of the commission’s work. We insisted with several subjects so that they could fulfill the requirements of the commission,” he said.

At a press conference, Bruno Aragao never commented on the existence of obvious contradictions between the statements of ministers Ana Catarina Mendez and Mariana Vieira da Silva, on the one hand, and the holder of the financial portfolio, Fernando Medina, on the other. other side.

“A commission of inquiry has been set up, which should have all the conditions for the implementation of its mandate, requesting documents that it understands and listening to people that it understands, and responding to this process with all calmness,” he said.

When asked if PS was also deceived in this commission of inquiry about the existence of an opinion that would justify the resignation of the TAP executive presidents and board of directors, Bruno Aragao countered: “Questions, of course, are not asked. like this”.

“The PS voted yes, requested a set of documents that it does not know, and therefore cannot speak on them without knowing them. These documents are requested from a certain subject, be it the Government or another, and the treatment is exactly the same,” he said.

Bruno Aragao later pointed out that after the answers given to the various organizations, “the commission of inquiry analyzes them and, if it does not agree, it must insist on this purpose.”

A commission of inquiry must take place with certain rules and with an exception. There is a big difference with regard to the permanent parliamentary commission,” he stressed, noting at the time: “The commission of inquiry is about what happened, and not about what I would like it to happen.”

“Regarding what happened, we must investigate within the limits of what is possible given the time, and, in the end, draw conclusions. Political consequences will then be drawn from these conclusions,” he insisted.

Then the Coordinator of the Commission of Inquiry of the PS tried to point out that so far “there has never been a refusal to transfer documents.”

“The commission requested a package of documents, the Government responded to the commission, the commission realized that this answer did not fit into its understanding and took steps with the Government. This happened at the initial stage of the commission’s work. We insisted with several subjects so that they could fulfill the requirements of the commission,” he said.

Bruno Aragao tried to emphasize the main principles he said the PS defended: “Total exemption, certain rules, clarity about the commission’s procedures.”

“Citizens cannot have any doubts about what our mandate was and about the conclusions. We have to share what is the role of the parliamentary group and deputies in this commission and the role of the government in response to There are healthy relations between institutions, whether it be parliament, government or public administration, although at times there may be different understandings,” he added.

On Wednesday, the government justified its refusal to send legal opinions in support of the removal of the former executive president of the company to the TAP commission of inquiry on the basis of the need to “protect the public interest.”

In a note sent to Lusa, the office of the Deputy Minister for Parliamentary Affairs, Ana Catarina Mendez, argues that “the opinion in question is not within the competence of the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry (CPI)” and “disclosing it entails risks in the defense legal position of the state.”

At a parliamentary hearing Thursday, Finance Minister Fernando Medina said there was no “additional opinion” to justify the resignation of the “chairman” and president of the executive committee (CEO) of TAP, beyond what is the result of a General Inspectorate for Finance (IGF) report.

“There is no opinion, the idea that there will be an opinion … there is no opinion additional to what is the basis for the justification for the dismissal, which is more than enough for those who read it, regarding the conclusion of the Inspectorate of the City of Finance,” said Fernando Medina.