Justice decides that there was no illegality in the payment of BRL 22 million made by the government of Amapá to the Ecuador Consortium – News of Brazil
[ad_1]
Paulo Silva
Policy Editor
The judge Diogo de Souza Sobral, of the 2nd Civil Court and Public Treasury of Macapá, dismissed the action of the Public Ministry of Amapá (MP-AP) against the payment of BRL 22 million made by the state government to the Ecuador Consortium, which provided services to the state.
Last year, still under the management of the governor Waldez Goes, The public ministry proposed public civil action against Breno Chaves PintoCR Almeida – EGESA – LB Consortium, EGESA Engenharia, Ione da Glória Barbosa and LB Construções Ltda, with the aim of declaring the unavailability of assets and blocking their bank accounts, up to the amount of BRL 22,099,562.65.
The MP stated that the state of Amapá paid the aforementioned amount to the CONSORTIUM ECUADOR – EGESA/LB as interest and monetary restatement arising from delays in payments relating to contract 008/2011-SETRAP, referring to the period from February 2013 to January 2018, therefore being expired.
He narrated that the payment of such amount was immoral and caused damage to the treasury, given the meager resources of the state, which always depends on agreements and terms of collaboration with the Union. He argued that such funds could be used to invest in basic services. He also asserted that the payment was made in a single installment and did not observe the order of state creditors, demonstrating favorability to the CONSORTIUM ECUADOR – EGESA/LBin particular because the partner of the company LB CONSTRUÇÕES LTDA, Breno Barbosa Chaves Pinto, is an alternate senator of the Republic. In addition, he accused that there was a violation of Article 1-F of Law 9,494/1997, since the indexes set in the contract did not comply with such provision.
The government of Amapá manifested itself and denied any illegality, since the payment came from the execution of a contract object of road infrastructure works that are part of the state road program, in view of the bidding, in the form of public competition, approved in October 2010 , administration of the then governor Camilo Capiberibe (PSB).
The state narrated that the value was in the amount of R$ 28,327,035.47. In view of this, he maintained that the SETRAP requested information from PGE and the CGE, in order to subsidize the payment of such amount, at which time the occurrence of prescription was ruled out, in view of the administrative request of the year 2018, which covered the previous five years, and that the indexes of correction and interest complied with the contractual terms, prepared under the then governor Camilo Capiberibe, there being no evidence of any irregularity. The others cited in the lawsuit also denied wrongdoing.
In the decision, the judge Diogo Souza states that there was no unconstitutionality or illegality adopted by the state when paying the overdue amounts, with rates different from those disciplined in article 1-F of Law 9,494/97, even because such rate is applicable to convictions by the Public Treasury – a different hypothesis from the record, which deals with an administrative contract.
as for Breno Barbosa being a legal representative of the consortium and, at the time of the filing of the action, an alternate candidate for senator, does not attract, by plan, the hypothesis of personal favoritism or violation of the principle of morality, which must be observed by the Public Administration. Even because Breno took over the administration of such companies in the year 2021, that is, after the administrative request for payment formulated in the year 2018.
“Allied to this, the Public Prosecutor’s Office did not demonstrate that the payment of the contested amount was due to any type of intervention by Breno Barbosa or because he was the current representative of the Consortium that provided services to the state. It is evident that the mere conjecture that this occurred does not imply illegality in the payment of overdue amounts, being imperative to fully demonstrate that there was personal favoritism or political intervention”said the judge when dismissing the request of the Public Ministry and confirming the legality of the payment.
Regarding the allegation that the payment made by the state was time-barred, the judge noted that there was an administrative request for the payment of such amount in 2018, covering the previous five years, pursuant to article 1 of Decree 20,910/32, with no damage to the treasury to be reimbursed and the claim must be dismissed. The Public Ministry can still appeal.
Leave your comment
Advertising
[ad_2]
Source link
