The legal proceedings involving Rui Mesquita have encountered new developments. According to a judicial source, the Public Prosecutor’s Office has submitted the case to the Court of Appeal. The source clarified that the prosecutor sought to secure benefits for the State, a motion not accepted by the presiding judge, prompting the appeal.
The trial of Rui Mesquita, accused of directing over 270,000 euros in contracts between 2013 and 2021 to two companies in which he has a managerial stake, was initially set to commence in January. However, it experienced delays due to judicial staff strikes. While the trial was slated to begin today, its start is currently undetermined.
The charges assert that the former official committed acts of prevarication and economic participation in business with direct intent and clear misconduct. In March, Mesquita, a former socialist official, expressed his confidence to Lusa news agency in being acquitted, maintaining that he acted in the best interest of the municipality and harmed no one.
Investigations into the case began in 2019 after an anonymous allegation citing corruption and abuse of power. Subsequently, two separate complaints were filed in 2021 by Maria Ivone Marques, a candidate for the Liberal Initiative in that year’s local elections. Mesquita stepped down from his position in October 2022, citing personal and professional reasons.
The prosecution argues that during his tenure, Mesquita authorized contracts to MFR – Soluções Elétricas Lda. and Discretevidente – Unipessoal Lda., companies he managed and co-owned, without adhering to legal procedures. Documents reveal that MFR Soluções Elétricas invoiced approximately 91,951 euros between 2016 and 2020, while Discretevidente charged 180,585 euros from 2018 to 2021.
Prosecutors allege all decisions regarding these contracts were unilaterally taken by Mesquita without consulting other executive members. The contracts bypassed formal processes, lacking competitive bidding or consultation, and did not meet the Public Contracts Code’s requirements.
To obscure the absence of competitive contracting, Mesquita reportedly engaged other companies, such as RijocerUnipessoal LcF and Flashside- Canalizações e Eletriciidade Unipessoal Lda., for budget proposals, creating a semblance of competition. However, these companies were neither awarded contracts nor executed any work.
Budgets provided were often dated after the contractual decisions or project completions. The prosecution highlights Mesquita’s awareness of the legal discrepancies, noting the absence of requisite invitations to potential competitors and preparation of necessary documents as per the Public Contracts Code then in force.
