The Ombudsman, Maria Lúcia Amaral, expressed concern and perplexity this Monday about the recent court cases and warned that there are no unlimited powers without scrutiny, in an interview with Rádio Renascença released today.
In the interview, when asked about the Influencer operation, the provider emphasizes that she speaks as a citizen, jurist and university law professor to say that she was “perplexed” by what happened.
“Everything indicates, according to the Court of Appeal, that there was a gross error by the Public Prosecutor’s Office with consequences that are visible to everyone and are of a magnitude that is impossible not to notice”, states, stressing that “there are no powers in Portugal that cannot be scrutinized and are not accountable”.
“There are no unlimited powers in Portugal, there cannot be and we will all be in agreement with that”, he said.
On the same subject, he added: “If there are suspicions about the Prime Minister of Portugal, I think it is common sense that everyone wants these suspicions to be resolved, or confirmed, or denied! Because the suspicion about the first, the former Prime Minister of Portugal, is a stain on us all and is an external stain on the Portuguese State”.
On Friday, the President of the Assembly of the Republic, José Pedro Aguiar-Branco, said in an interview with Antena 1, that the Attorney General of the Republic, Lucília Gago, must provide explanations about the processes that caused political crises, namely the operation Influencer who led to the dismissal of the then Prime Minister, António Costa.
The Ombudsman also drew attention to the time that the legalization processes for migrants are taking, especially after the extinction of the Foreigners and Borders Service (SEF), and acknowledged that “things are not going well”.
“We took too long to (…) legalize people. This has a huge risk, which could have perverse consequences”, said the official.
Things “don’t go well because the people who enter then need to have a residence permit and it takes a long time to obtain it, they don’t go well because the residence permit has a deadline and needs to be renewed and the renewal of the residence permit residence is another nightmare,” he said.
Maria Lúcia Amaral recalled that the processes already took time when SEF was responsible and that now, with the competence “distributed among multiple entities”, the “maximum challenge” is being able to coordinate the entire process.
“When the public authorities of a State have dysfunctions of this nature, placing a large number of people in fragile situations in limbo, all kinds of dark businesses flourish or tend to flourish”, considered Maria Lúcia Amaral, referring to ” networks that use the vulnerability of these people, for example, to fill queues before the Portuguese authorities, on which the legalization of people depends”.
Regarding his decision to send a request to the judges of the Constitutional Court to monitor the rules of the Medically Assisted Death Law, he stated that the process and its translation into law has been “very uneven”, remembering that “there have already been four different diplomas from the Assembly of the Republic, with four presidential vetoes”.
He considers the reason why the court did not rule as decisive, stressing that the central issue is “to ensure that the person who chooses to request assistance in dying (this is a form that appears in Spanish law) has a will that is absolutely free and enlightened.”
“In order for there to be a free and informed will, it is necessary for the State to guarantee, throughout the administrative procedure, that the person has other options, namely to improve the tremendous suffering they are in”, he insisted, stressing that the response of palliative care in the national territory is the most lacking in Europe.
And he also questions: “how can a State in which the Constitution says that the State has the duty to protect and promote both the free expression of people’s autonomy and the right to life, how in these circumstances can we be sure that are these two goods guaranteed and that people’s freedom is truly guaranteed?”
