André Ventura announced this Tuesday that Chega will move forward with the complaint for the crime of “Treason against the Fatherland” against the President of the Republic. At issue are Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa’s statements about reparations to former colonies at a dinner with foreign journalists around the 25th of April. “The President of the Republic deserves our full respect as head of State. And therefore, these mechanisms should only be used in exceptional or serious cases, when we feel that it stops representing us and starts to represent other interests than the national one”said Ventura, in Parliament, where he announced the party’s decision.
Chega therefore considers that the President defended the interests of other countries and not Portugal, which is even more serious, according to Ventura, when two of these countries have already expressed their desire for reparations. “This is a process that will leave marks and fruits far beyond today. This will leave marks for the next generations, governments and parliaments”, stated.
The leader of Chega spoke to journalists outside the Senate Room, after a meeting of the parliamentary group in which deputies presented their positions on the topic. “This is the final decision of the parliamentary group which, regardless of positions, assumes it consensually as a united group”, stated Ventura, also highlighting that “regardless of the legal issue, there is political censorship that could not fail to happen.
Jurists and law professors contributed in writing to the decision. However, as SIC had already reported, Chega refuses to reveal the entity of these experts for “confidentiality reasons”. Regarding these, André Ventura only says that “there were indications in all directions” and repeated that the experts consulted requested anonymity.
These opinions were received after the party leader, himself a jurist, admitted to having “doubts about the criminal nature of the President of the Republic’s behavior”. On Sunday, André Ventura argued at a press conference at the party headquarters that the criminal action “deserves to be considered”, but admitted that the statements may not have “legal consistency”.
On the same day, the possible complaint had already been devalued by the p