In a statement issued this Thursday (August 6th), the Rio de Janeiro Public Prosecutor's Office denied having acquitted Governor Wilson Witzel of the investigations into fraud and misappropriation of funds in the fight against the pandemic. According to the Public Prosecutor's Office, prosecutors merely noted that, up until the time the lawsuit was filed, there was no evidence of the governor's involvement. The statement, according to the statement, was intended primarily to demonstrate the Public Prosecutor's Office's role in filing the lawsuit, not to exonerate Wilson Witzel, as some media outlets have led them to believe.
"The clarification, therefore, does not authorize the inference that the governor has been absolved of any responsibility. It is obvious that, if the evidentiary landscape changes and evidence of the state chief executive's involvement in the irregularities emerges, his name will be immediately included in the lawsuit, through a regular amendment," the statement reads.
Yesterday, as anticipated by Agenda do Poder, the Attorney General's Office reiterated its accusations against Wilson Witzel, claiming that a criminal organization was involved in healthcare contracting and that he was at the "apex of the pyramid." The Attorney General's Office also requested the release of former Secretary Edmar Santos and the transfer of the case entirely to the Attorney General's Office, ending the Rio de Janeiro Public Prosecutor's Office's role in the investigation.
Read the MPRJ note
The Public Prosecutor's Office of Rio de Janeiro (MPRJ), through the Deputy Attorney General's Office for Civil and Institutional Affairs (SubCivel/MPRJ), the Task Force for Integrated Action in the Oversight of State and Municipal Actions to Combat COVID-19 (FTCOVID-19/MPRJ) and the Specialized Action Group for Combating Corruption (GAECC/MPRJ), clarifies that the news reports in the press that “the MPRJ exonerated the governor” from the investigations carried out in the Health area, at the state level, are not true.
In reality, what the prosecutors in charge of the investigations mentioned in their statement, officially released in the records, was that, until the moment of filing the action aimed at holding public and private agents accountable for irregularities in contracts for the acquisition of tests to detect COVID-19, no evidence of the governor's involvement was found.
This clarification, contained in the initial petition for the action itself, was necessary for the judge to examine the prosecutors' authority to file the case. At that time, the Public Prosecutor's Office (MPRJ) could not delay the initiation of the action, as it would risk the disposal of assets and valuables by the investigated parties, jeopardizing subsequent reimbursement to the public treasury.
The clarification, therefore, does not authorize the inference that the governor has been absolved of any responsibility. It is clear that, if the evidentiary landscape changes and evidence of the state chief executive's involvement in the irregularities emerges, his name will be immediately included in the lawsuit, through a regular amendment.
Leave a comment