The Attorney General of the Nation, Julio Saavedra, stated that the actions of the head of the Public Ministry (MP), Consuelo Porras, seek to criminalize him for his performance as a public official. In addition, using reposts on social network X as an argument for her legal requests violates her right to express herself freely.
In an interview with Free Press The official responded to the allegations made by Porras in the recently filed legal appeal. In this, he argues that the attorney general’s actions are exceeding his functions and are a “real and imminent” threat to “deceitfully” get Porras to resign. For this reason, he requests that Saavedra be immediately removed from office and investigated for disobedience and failure to comply with the provisional protection order.
The Constitutional Court (CC) granted this protection to Porras on May 7, requesting that the actions of executive officials that put the independence of the MP at risk be halted.
What does the Public Prosecutor’s Office mean with the publications you have made?
In the request for due execution, she encloses with regard to me only two impressions of some publications on social network X. One is a retweet of a PGN statement and the other a retweet by Minister Patricia Orantes, in which the newspaper La Hora is being retweeted in a video with statements of mine.
These are the only two impressions, evidence that she claims supports her theory that I intend to remove her from office.
It is clear that none of these publications or any of my actions as a public official suggest or can be concluded that this is my intention. My intention and objective is to fulfill the mandate that the Constitution and the laws assign me as Attorney General of the Nation. I have limited myself to defending the interests of the citizens and looking after the interests of the State.
What do you think about the call for his immediate dismissal?
She wants to immediately remove me from my position because I duplicated two tweets that, according to her, imply that I want to remove her from office. It’s absurd. And then she says, without prejudice to criminal liability for disobedience and failure to comply with the provisional protection granted by the CC.
First, they remove me and immediately, but a second later, they prosecute me criminally, what she wants is to put me in jail. That is called criminalization. It is an abuse of criminal law to criminalize me, I have already stated before that she has me as a political target. I am upset and she wants to put me in jail.
Do you think that using two retweets violates your right to freedom of expression?
Of course. First, the right to express myself freely and second, we would have to review where in those communications or tweets I made any statement in which I was clearly expressing any intention to remove her from office.
We are not going to find it because it does not say so, because these are issues that I do not know what logical process was used in its interpretation.
He will continue to look and I would not be surprised if he is also trying to find ways to criminalize me.
Do you think the measures can be increased?
For now, what concerns me is to limit myself to what the prosecutor requested in the writ of due execution and I have already complied with what the mandate that was given to me or what the CC ordered me to do, and it has already been fulfilled. Today at noon (August 1) the respective memorials were sent.
Due to the nature of their functions, the PGN and the MP coincide in the legal processes that concern them. How do they work with these constant confrontations?
Objectively, then, everyone does their job. That is the answer I could give you.
CONTENT FOR SUBSCRIBERS
Is there any reason for you to fear for your safety?
I honestly don’t think so. I think the work done by the entire security team that I have at the PGN is very good, it’s excellent. I’m well looked after, but I couldn’t say for sure, it would be a responsibility for me to want to make a connection or to want to say that I fear for my safety. I don’t fear for my safety, rather what I fear is that this process of criminalisation against me will continue.
The attorney general published a video in which she addresses the president. Could the way she addresses the president be considered sedition?
Sedition is a very particular crime that I believe does not fit the bill, but violation of the Constitution seems to me to be something that could be investigated. I cannot give you a categorical classification because it is not my responsibility.
#PGN #request #Consuelo #Porras
