Hugo Delgado / Lusa
The Minister of Health, Ana Paula Martins
The Minister of Health, Ana Paula Martins, is at the center of a political and judicial controversy. In his hearing before the INEM Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry, he assured that he was not aware of the advance notice of the strike by pre-hospital emergency technicians. Chega thinks the minister lied.
The INEM Parliamentary Inquiry Commission approved the sending of the testimony given by the Minister of Health to the Public Ministry, Ana Paula Martinsfollowing suspicions raised by Chega that the government official may have failed to tell the truth during the parliamentary hearing on the strike of pre-hospital emergency technicians, at the end of 2024.
At issue is the in-person hearing of the minister, held on April 21, in the commission that investigates the actions of INEM and the response of the Ministry of Health during the period in which the medical emergency was affected by the overtime strike.
The minister stated to the deputies that the advance notice of strike by INEM technicians, a position similar to that already taken at the time by the same commission by the former Secretary of State for Health Management, Cristina Vaz Tomé.
Chega, however, considers that This version presents contradictions in light of other testimonies and elements collected within the scope of the CPI.
The party submitted a request on Thursday to the president of the commission, Marta Martins da Silva, deputy elected by Chega himselfin which the extraction of a certificate of the minister’s statements is requested so that the Public Prosecutor’s Office can assess whether there was crime of false testimony or false statements.
In the document, André Ventura’s party maintains that, “at various moments” during the testimony, they were evident “inconsistencies in speech” by Ana Paula Martins, taking into account the conclusions drawn from other auditions already held.
For Chega, the severity of the case increases as it is a parliamentary commission of inquiry dedicated to an essential body such as INEM. “If it is serious to deceive Parliament, to confuse society, the more serious it will be to miss the truth in a parliamentary commission of inquiry”, says the request.
The initiative wasi approved by the committee with 10 votes in favor and 9 against. In addition to Chega’s deputies, the PS also voted in favor sending the statement to the Public Prosecutor’s Office, although without fully subscribing to the arguments presented by the proposing party. THE Free abstainedwhile PSD and Liberal Initiative voted against.
The socialist deputy Sofia Andrade justified the PS vote with the need to clarify any doubtss. According to the socialists, there were inconsistencies in the minister’s testimony that justify an analysis of who is competent to do so.
Already the PSD contested the initiativewith deputy Miguel Guimarães, former president of the Medical Association, accusing Chega’s request of being “fallacious” and not being properly supported.
The central point of the controversy is whether Was Ana Paula Martins informed or not?before the strike, about the advance notice of the strike by pre-hospital emergency technicians, which at the time was during the strike period.
The strike occurred between October 30 and November 4, 2024 and affected the medical emergency response capacity. The minister herself admitted, at the hearing, that the situation resulted in a “perfect storm” and recognized that the management of the process “”.
Chega understands, however, that the allegation of ignorance is not credible. In the committee, the deputy Pedro Frazão defended that there cannot be “untouchable ministers” and that it is necessary to determine responsibilitiesincluding possible criminal consequences. The party argues that, if it is confirmed that the minister made false statements, the matter could have criminal relevance.
Crime punishable by prison sentence
Lying to a parliamentary commission of inquiry may constitute a crime. The legislation predicts consequences for anyone who, after taking an oath and being warned of the criminal consequences, makes false statements about facts about which they must testify, notes the .
The crime of false testimony or declaration, provided for in article 359 of the Penal Code, can be punished with a prison sentence of up to three years or a fine.
Depending on the legal assessment, a crime of qualified disobedienceprovided for in article 348 of the Penal Code, punishable by imprisonment for up to two years or a fine of up to 240 days.
It will now be up to the Public Ministry to assess whether the minister’s statements constitute a political contradiction, a failure of memory or a possible falsehood criminally relevant.
This analysis should focus on the confrontation between the testimony of Ana Paula Martins, other testimonies given at the CPI and possible documentary elements regarding the communication of strike notice to the Ministry of Health.
Even if the Public Prosecutor’s Office concludes that there is no criminal matter, the case may worsen political pressure on Ana Paula Martins. The minister has refused to resign despite successive controversies in the health sector, and the prime minister has publicly maintained his trust in the government official.
A possible conclusion that the minister did not tell the truth before Parliament could, however, have significant political impact.
It’s not the first time that a government official is accused of not telling the truth in parliamentary commissions of inquiry.
In 2023, the then Minister of Infrastructure, João Galambaof lying in the TAP CPI. The PSD presented an identical request to the one now presented by Chega, which ended up being failed by the PS and the PCP.
In 2015, during the Commission of Inquiry into BES, the then Minister of Finance, Victor Gaspar, was also accused of false statements by the president of BPI, Fernando Ulrich.
