Costa says he was not the one who authorized the SIS and that Mendonza Mendez was not involved

The Prime Minister contends that SIS’s move to return the computer seized from the Department of Infrastructure did not require its authorization and was not the result of a suggestion by its Undersecretary of State, Mendonça Mendez.

These statements are contained in António Costa’s replies, accessed by the Luz agency, to a PSD request with fifteen questions about the activities of the Security Information Service (SIS) following the return of a laptop seized by Frederico Pinheiro, former Assistant Minister of Infrastructure João Galamba on the night of April 26.

PSD said in a statement that “the Minister of Infrastructure said that it was Prime Minister’s Deputy Secretary of State António Mendonça Méndez who proposed the SIRP (Portuguese Republic Information System)/SIS intervention” and asks “on what is the proposal based, when did it occur and on what conditions.”

António Costa replies that, “according to what was made public by the Minister of Infrastructure and confirmed by his head of cabinet [Eugénia Correia]the initiative to apply to the SIS came from the head of the cabinet of the Minister of Infrastructure, and not as a result of a proposal by the Deputy Secretary of State to the Prime Minister.”

António Costa reiterates that, in his opinion, “the head of the Cabinet of the Minister of Infrastructure acted correctly in the face of the security breach of classified documents.”

Regarding the moment and timeframe in which the Minister of Infrastructure informed him of the use of SIRP/SIS to recover the computer, the Chief Executive states: about what happened and reassuring me that this had already been reported to the competent authorities, namely the SIS.”

Asked whether he “sanctioned, approved or accepted, however tacitly, this decision”, the Prime Minister replied that he had been asked to give any permission: “As I have also publicly and repeatedly stated, I have not been and am not must be informed in advance of any action by the SIS, so I was not asked to provide any permission.”

“By the way, I believe, based on what has been said by various stakeholders, that when I spoke with the Minister of Infrastructure, SIS had already contacted Dr. Frederico Pinheiro and arranged with him for a voluntary and free return of the computer. , as he himself told the media on April 28, 29 and 30,” he adds.

Regarding the legal grounds on which the intervention of the SIS was based, another issue of the PSD, Costa highlights that the Secretary General of the SIS, Graça Ambassador Mira Gómez and the SIS director Adelio Neiva da Cruz “have already had the opportunity to check with the Parliamentary Committee on Constitutional Affairs, Rights, Freedoms and guarantees the legal basis for their actions, and the competent authorities for checking the activities of information services have already publicly and unanimously declared that there are no signs of illegal actions on the part of the SIS.

“For my part, based on the assessment of the SIRP Review Board that I received from the Secretary General of SIRP, I confirm what I said earlier regarding the current assessment of the threat structure for critical infrastructures and in view of the security breach warning classified documents in the Ministry infrastructures resulting from the misappropriation and use of violence against the computer of the Portuguese state,” he argues.

Mentioning that “misappropriation and forcible use of the computer” took place, António Costa also answers another question about whether he “supports the theft of the computer.”

SIS intervened in the recovery of a computer taken from the Ministry of Infrastructure by Frederico Pinheiro, who was fired that night.

This case concerns complaints against ex-deputy Galamba about physical abuse in the ministry, which are rejected by Galamba himself, who complains that he was abducted in the building.

After the events of April 26, opposite versions appeared publicly between the employees of the minister’s office and Frederico Pinheiro, as well as information that the government should provide to the parliamentary commission investigating the political guardianship of the TAP leadership.