The shock that the criminal case involving Miguel Alves (former Mayor of Caminha and Former Deputy Secretary of State of António Costa) and Manuela Sousa (Couto) caused in the political career of the former and in the state of mind of the socialists from Caminha.
Firstly, to say that the aforementioned case of a criminal nature has not yet ended, and is far from ending, to the extent that the MP announced to appeal the first instance ruling, which has already happened.
Secondly, note that, with the acquittal at first instance, there was no shortage of bass drums and drums, with the blowing of joyful horns, speeches and demonstrations of solidarity, especially from socialist circles towards the first defendant, the so-called Miguel Alves .
The euphoria is understandable – as soon as the MP announced that he would appeal, it disappeared, let’s face it.
It is understandable, above all, the state of need of the socialists of Caminha who, since 2014 until today in the management of municipal funds, first by the hand of Miguel Alves and now by the hand of the non-existent Rui Lages, have to justify so much to the people of Caminha for the absolute failure of municipal management and the insolvent state of public accounts (but that’s another five hundred).
In short, the ruling that acquitted Miguel Alves and Manuela Sousa was an oxygen balloon, expected in despair, but of short duration.
Without losing sight of, for us, the sacred presumption of innocence of the defendants, let us see what is still at stake:
In the thesis of the prosecution (MP), Miguel Alves, as president of CM de Caminha, determined on March 30, 2015, without any legal or procedural basis, a public contracting procedure, with company(ies) from Manuel Sousa’s business universe, to partially remunerate services already provided by those companies between July 2014 and February 25, 2015, which were intended to enhance the dissemination of events organized by CM de Caminha, and ensure the presence of Miguel Alves in the media, namely television .
On 06/05/2016, by order of Miguel Alves, a new public contracting procedure was initiated with MIT, by direct award.
The total of direct adjustments amounted to €71,157.96 (including VAT), and the prosecution understood that Miguel Alves and Manuela Sousa acted in combination of efforts, freely and lucidly, contracting services from companies without any contracting procedure publications that they knew well suited to the case, and Miguel Alves, still caused the need to hire communication consultancy services so that a public procurement procedure could be initiated, knowing well that this would have to result in the award of such services to MIT.
For these facts, the Prosecution accused Miguel Alves of violating public contracting rules that he was obliged to know and respect, rules that Manuel Sousa could also not be unaware of, which is why, according to the prosecution, the defendants Miguel Alves and Manuela Sousa, they committed, in co-authorship and consummately, a crime of malfeasance, in accordance with the legal provisions described therein.
In Miguel Alves’ defense thesis (explanations given by him during the trial): The services initially provided by the companies and Manuela Sousa (the value of which amounted to around €20,000.00 (according to Manuela Sousa herself), were provided free of charge, whether because the Chamber did not have the money to hire them, or because (according to Manuela Sousa) offering this service was a way of pleasing customers so that later they could be recruited and obtained contracts (which happened).
Miguel Alves even states the following: (…) And on my side, Madam Doctor, there was, on the one hand, I needed to work with them, but on the other hand I was also managing time, defending the public interest and the capacity of the camera: I can’t say that it would be a beneficial thing for Manuela’s company, but the truth is, I knew that we would move forward and, therefore, if I could sign the contract from April onwards, I wouldn’t pay for the month of March, I wouldn’t pay the month of February…
From now on, it should be said that the thesis of the defendants’ defense causes us, from the point of view of credibility and from an ethical-political point of view, disbelief and nausea,
Disbelief, first of all because, from the point of view of a private manager, it is not credible that Manuela Sousa’s companies, whose aim is to make a profit, would have offered services worth more than €20,000.00 (plus VAT) to the Municipality of Caminha – between July 2014 to February 2015 -, without even having signed a patronage contract that would allow him to deduct the costs inherent to this production, in the company’s taxes.
It becomes less credible when the contracts that these companies later obtained (clearly in violation of all the principles that govern public contracting (maximum transparency and competition), were, according to the defendants and other witnesses, at market prices.
Let’s make a small parenthesis here to say that we are not at all surprised that, at the end of the testimony of several witnesses, the Public Prosecutor’s Office decided to extract certificates from these testimonies, to investigate these witnesses for the crime of false statements or statements.
On the other hand, as a citizen, resident and local elected official in the municipality of Caminha, it cannot but make us feel nauseous to see that he who had the functional duty of honoring the name and people of Caminha, given his personal need to be seen in national social media (therefore seeking personal projection even as a commentator on the weekly agenda) confuses this need with the municipal public interest and the good accounts and good name of the Municipality of Caminha and its people, taking the case in court in an attempt to free the water of the capote, that from my point of view, I knew what was at stake, it was a game of cat and mouse (statement by Miguel Alves to the Court.
It is clear that, from Miguel Alves’ point of view, Manuela Sousa’s companies were the cat that intended to conclude a public contract with the Municipality of Caminha and the Mayor was the mouse that delayed the hunt.
As a citizen, resident in Caminha and elected locally to the Municipal Assembly, I cannot help but say that, just imagine that the highest official in my Municipality, the one who represents it at the highest level, the territory and all its citizens, the one who has the functional duty of setting the highest example of ethical behavior, if I could assume that he behaved like a rat, it perplexes me.
Admitting in a trial where he was accused that he behaved like a rat with someone, no matter who it was and for whatever reason, makes me feel nauseous…
From what is proven in the judgment and the appeal, we can guess:
In fact, at least in the first instance, the judges who made up the formation believed in the defendants’ thesis, that is, they believed and proved that the services provided by Manuela Sousa’s companies to the Municipality of Caminha between July 2014 and February 2015 were effectively free. They gave this fact as proven, in fact.
Just as they believed that the first contract between the Municipality of Caminha and one of those companies, concluded between April and May 2015, did not aim to provide partial payment for the services provided by those companies between July 2014 and February 2015.
Also for these facts, the defendants were acquitted in the first instance. And they celebrated with joy, at least in Caminha.
However, despite the acquittal based on proven factuality, it does not mean that the trial Court correctly applied the law.
Let’s see:
Article 113, paragraph 5 of the Public Contracts Code (applicable at the material date) prescribes that entities that have carried out works, supplied movable assets or provided services to the contracting entity, free of charge, cannot also be invited to submit proposals. in the current economic year or in the two previous economic years, unless they have done so under the Patronage Statute.
Now, it is proven that it is in the first instance that the companies in the Manuela Sousa universe provided, free of charge and without being under the patronage, solely with the expectation of attracting “the client”, communication and image services to the Municipality of Caminha, ensuring the intervention of the Mayor Miguel Alves, in several national media outlets, services that, in the defense version, amount to around €20,000.00;
So, it seems to become evident that when Miguel Alves determined (as he assumed in court) to invite these companies to, by direct agreement, provide that “service” to the municipality of Caminha, he violated what is expressly prohibited by art. 113, no. 5 of the Public Contracts Code.
In short, in addition to other possible reasons, one can well guess where the MP’s appeal to the Superior Court will be aligned.
This new instance will only have to apply the Law to the proven facts:
As the law states that Manuela Sousa’s companies could not be invited to provide services to the Municipality of Caminha, precisely because they had provided free services to this entity in the last two years, it is clear that public procurement rules were knowingly violated and, therefore, this may result in malfeasance.
One last note to say that there is a big difference between contracts between private parties and between them and public entities.
Among private individuals, it is permissible to attract clients through the “offering” of services.
Between private and public entities, the legislator wanted to exclude and removed this possibility with article 113, n.5 of the CCP, precisely to promote transparency, competition and public interest.
Miguel Alves, or any other public office holder, could not be unaware of these principles and legal norms.
Having filed the appeal, let us wait for justice to be done!
Jorge Nande
(representative of the OCP Political Group to AM de Caminha)
