Commission concludes that Member of the PS violated duties in insulting Enough

A Transparency Commission concluded today that socialist José Carlos Barbosa violated the code of conduct and the statute of deputies for offensive and insulting statements addressed to the leader of the Aquira Rui Paulo Sousa.

This conclusion is contained in a report drawn up by Mrs Nuna Menezes, which was adopted by the MEPs from the PSD, Arriga and the Liberal Initiative.

Members of the PS and of the Free were not present at the time of the vote, and Rui Paulo Sousa, chairman of the Transparency Committee, asked for excuses in this process for being the complainant.

Last summer, Rui Paulo Sousa criticized the private holiday trip by PS deputy José Carlos Barbosa, by train, from Paredes to Beijing, which included a Transiberian route by the Russian Federation. “While Ukraine continues to count dead and cities destroyed by the Russian invasion, PS deputy José Carlos Barbosa walks around Russia, smiles at the chamber and turns the aggressor country into a tourist postcard,” wrote Rui Paulo Sousa on social networks.

Next, José Carlos Barbosa answered Rui Paulo Sousa as follows: “This racist and cheater is president of the Committee on Transparency and Statute of Members, besides being unwise, is unable to write a comma without recourse to Artificial Intelligence.” Not even an email can answer. Moreover, it is not very good in accounts as the book on Enough tells us”.

According to the report now approved, “these are expressions that a Member should not use, not only because they affect the duty of urbanity and due respect among them, but also do not preserve the dignity and credibility of the Assembly of the Republic”.

“ In fact, the conduct of José Carlos Barbosa disregards fundamental duties of Members, provided for in the Statute of Members and the Code of Conduct of Members of the Assembly of the Republic”, reads in the conclusions of the report.

He then refers to the fact that “despite the seriousness of the conduct” of José Carlos Barbosa, “the existing parliamentary-legal system does not provide for sanctioning mechanisms applicable to the violation of the duties of Members”.

“ In fact, it is not possible to impose any sanctions on the conduct of José Carlos Barbosa for lack of legal and/or statutory qualifications. It would be desirable, however, to (...) that the political censorship arising from the findings of this investigation might have some effect, namely dissuasive, in relation to Mr Carlos Barbosa, at least in order to prevent him from repeating this kind of behaviour in the future, even though the very limited scope of this path of political responsibility is recognised”, the conclusions also state.

In this sense, the Parliamentary Transparency Committee merely urges José Carlos Barbosa to carry out, in the performance of his duties, the duties of the Members. (...) He must conduct himself, in the exercise of his parliamentary mandate, by respecting the dignity of the Assembly of the Republic and its Members, as well as the duties of urbanity and institutional loyalty, refraining from conduct that affects the prestige and image of the parliamentary institution”.

Listened to by the Transparency Commission in September, following the complaint that Rui Paulo Sousa had filed, the deputy of the PS took over his conduct by keeping “integerly and unreservedly, each of the words he wrote”.

At this stage of the process, José Carlos Barbosa even asked for the investigation to be closed because, in his view, “there is no violation of the duties of Members”.

He claimed that the expressions used by him “are words of the Portuguese language, use in its precise dictionary sense and on a documented factual basis, constituting a legitimate exercise of freedom of political expression”.

The Transparency Commission, however, validated the complaint of the deputy of the Aquida against the socialist parliamentary, considering that the expressions used “are objectively capable of achieving the honor, good name, personal consideration and political-institutional reputation” of Rui Paulo Sousa, “still questioning his role as chairman of that committee”.

That is, “by their nature, content and form of public disclosure, they do not constitute a substantive response to the criticism formulated, nor an appreciation, albeit severe, of a political position: they are likely to translate a dishonorable imputation and a direct personal disqualification”.