A proposal by João Ribeiro, a member of the board of the Portuguese section of Transparency International, suggests the creation of a new crime called "undue intermediation for access to public decision-making", which could punish with up to three years in prison the use of personal, family, party, professional, economic or institutional relationships to obtain undue advantages in public processes or decisions. The document was sent at the end of July to parties with parliamentary representation, with the exception of Chega, for assessment and possible political and parliamentary discussion.
The proposal does not aim to criminalise legitimate contacts with public officials, such as asking about the status of a process or filing a complaint. The intention is to distinguish these contacts from pressure intended to obtain favouritism, such as asking for a process to be moved ahead of others, requesting that an inspection not take place, or trying to obtain information not available to other citizens. The document also suggests that certain external contacts related to specific processes be registered by public entities to increase transparency.
The measure also proposes that the principle of transparency be extended to the private sector, mainly to listed companies, through the disclosure of recruitment opportunities for senior positions, in order to combat the practice of positions that seem to be born with a predefined recipient. The proposed regime would have a duration of 15 years, with assessments every four years, analysing indicators such as registered contacts, sectors most vulnerable to favouritism and the impact on citizens' confidence.
So far, only PSD is said to have formally contacted João Ribeiro to discuss the proposal. The article emphasises that this is merely an initial idea and that between a proposal and an amendment to the Penal Code there is a long path of political, legal and parliamentary discussion. The proposal raises delicate questions, as knowing someone or calling someone cannot be a crime in itself, and it is necessary to demonstrate the undue purpose of the intervention and its relation to a concrete public decision.
