The Montijo City Council did not prohibit the concert of Brazilian rapper Oruam, scheduled for Saturday, June 21, at Montijo Arena, due to an alleged petition from discontented residents.
The event took place but had to change location because the promoter did not meet the contractual conditions.
Allegation: “Rapper Oruam is banned from performing in Montijo by the city council” because “the population organized a petition”
On Saturday night, the nationalist account ‘Resistência Lusitana’ posted on the social network X claiming that Brazilian rapper Oruam was “banned from performing in Montijo by the city council” because “the population organized a petition preventing the Brazilian funk singer’s performance.” The same account added: “the Portuguese people are fed up,” using language and spelling typical of nationalist far-right groups.
By Sunday morning, another nationalist account reinforced this narrative, stating that “the Portuguese organized a petition preventing the Brazilian singer’s performance” in Montijo and that “in Portugal, the Portuguese are in charge.”
By Monday afternoon, these two X posts had exceeded 1 million views and continued to see their reach amplified through Brazilian nationalist accounts on various social networks besides X, criticizing the artist.
Oruam, born Mauro Nepomuceno, is the son of one of the leaders of the criminal organization Comando Vermelho and has recently been involved in two controversies with Portuguese authorities, notably with GNR agents in Alcochete and the Algarve (as reported by Jornal Polígrafo), but has performed several times in Portugal.
Facts: There was no petition, and the concert location change was due to the promoter’s failure to meet legal obligations
Various OSINT (open-source intelligence) analyses did not reveal the existence of any petition or citizen initiative against this Brazilian singer’s concert. However, they revealed that, on the night of June 21-22, singer Oruam performed at the Velho Texas nightclub, in Seixal, and at the Lisboa ao Vivo venue in Lisbon, without any incidents recorded.
Therefore, it is a fact that the concert did not take place at the Amadeu Augusto dos Santos Bullring (Montijo Arena), as was announced on the promoter’s networks until at least the 18th, but there is no evidence of a residents’ movement against the concert.
In a written response to Lusa Verifica, the Montijo City Council confirms that “it has no knowledge of any petition and had no involvement in the cancellation of the show in question.”
According to the city’s communication office, “the council was informed by email, signed by Ilídio Massacote, Provost of the Santa Casa da Misericórdia do Montijo, on June 18, of the cancellation of the show scheduled for the 21st (…) due to the ‘non-compliance with legal and regulatory obligations expressly communicated and agreed upon…’ by the producer.”
This version is confirmed by the Santa Casa da Misericórdia do Montijo, the entity managing Montijo Arena. A source from the communication office explained to Lusa that the decision was due to the failure to meet the requirements imposed by some of the consulted entities, which included the firefighters, PSP, or INEM, and that would have acted the same way with any other promoter.
“These entities issued favorable opinions conditioned on meeting a set of conditions that were not ensured by the end of the week, including hiring specialized security services with the PSP, given it was a high-risk event, which is why the promoter was informed that these requirements had to be met, otherwise the venue could not be used,” explained the same source.
Lusa attempted to contact Vítor Bacha, head of Bacha Produções, but received no response.
Conclusion of Lusa Verifica: False
Lusa’s fact-checking concludes that the narrative circulating on social networks about the alleged prohibition of Oruam’s concert by the Montijo municipality due to a residents’ petition is false. Not only does the city council claim no involvement in the process, but the entity owning the space, the Santa Casa do Montijo, explains that the promoter was forced to find another venue because they did not meet the contractual and legal obligations for such an event.
