Chamber sends Zampieri to the Corregedory by 9 to 1 after denunciation about 'mailboxes'

The Câmara Municipal de Ponta Grossa approved, on Monday (21), by nine votes in favour and one against, the referral to the Board of Directors of the representation presented by the councillor Guilherme Mazer (PT) against Ricardo Zampieri (PL). The case involves statements made by Zampieri about alleged “bags” and the possibility of a new operation of the Special Action Group to Combat Organized Crime (Gaeco) in the municipal legislature.

The vote came after a discussion on the right of the councilors to speak, which led to the temporary interruption of the session. After consulting the Prosecutor’s Office and the Legislative Process Directorate, the Speaker of the House, Dr. Erick (PV), granted each of the parliamentarians involved five minutes to present their arguments.

During his demonstration, Zampieri stated that he does not intend to hand over to the House the documents related to the suspicions he mentioned previously. According to the councillor, the information will be forwarded to the Public Prosecutor. The MP also described the representation presented by Mazer as an attempt at political retaliation because of his statements about alleged irregularities in the Legislative.

With the result of the vote, the representation will go to the Corregedoria of Câmara Municipal, responsible for the analysis of the case and the adoption of the measures provided for in the Rules of Procedure.

Mazer says Zampieri did not present evidence within 48 hours

The representation presented by Guilherme Mazer originates from the statements of Ricardo Zampieri during the ordinary session of August 24. At the time, the PL councilman mentioned alleged “bags” and stated that a possible new operation of Gaeco could result in the fall of members of the Câmara Municipal.

In front of the statements, Mazer presented a representation requesting that Zampieri be notified to present supporting documents within 48 hours. During the session on Monday, the councilman said that the deadline was granted, but that there was no demonstration of Zampieri within the established period.

According to Mazer, the representation was presented because he felt affected by the generalized statements of the parliamentary colleague. The councillor also stated that the Executive Bureau met and indicated the referral of the case to the Corregedoria, so that the body responsible examines the representation and allows Zampieri to present his defense.

The document BnT Online previously had access to confirms that Mazer requested the submission of the evidence within 48 hours and referral to the Office of the Attorney General if the documents were not delivered.

Zampieri says he will not hand over documents to the House

In using the floor during the session, Ricardo Zampieri questioned the representation's referral and stated that he was being targeted by an attempted retaliation for having mentioned alleged irregularities. The councilman argued that the concern of the members of the Legislative should be directed to the investigation of the complaints, and not to the accountability of those who presented them.

During his demonstration, Zampieri also made a reservation about the statement that all councilors would be aware of the aforementioned situations. According to him, if he said that everyone knew the facts, he would make the correction, because he would not be sure that all the parliamentarians had this information. However, he said many would be aware of the alleged irregularities.

The MP also stated that he intends to forward the complaint to the Public Prosecutor’s Office and that he will not present the documents to Câmara Municipal. Zampieri justified his decision by arguing that the delivery of the information to the legislature itself could compromise the investigation of the facts.

The statement represents a novelty in relation to the original representation: during the session, the councilor expressly stated that he does not intend to deliver the documents to the Chamber, even after the formal collection presented by Mazer. The transcript of the session does not present proof of a protocol of denunciation in the Public Prosecutor’s Office or documents that confirm the alleged irregularities mentioned by the councilor.

Councillor classifies representation as political retaliation

Ricardo Zampieri also related representation to the electoral period. During his demonstration, the councilman stated that the initiative of Guilherme Mazer would be politically motivated and mentioned the approach of the October elections. Zampieri argued that, in his assessment, representation would be an attempt to impair his political performance.

The parliamentarian also criticized the press coverage of the episode, asking for caution to the media in the dissemination of information. At the end of his demonstration, Zampieri reiterated that he was not concerned with the forwarding of the representation, but with the interpretation that the population could make of the episode.

The statements were presented as arguments of defense of the councilman during the session. The political motivation attributed by Zampieri to the representation is an allegation by the parliamentary, not a conclusion established by the vote.

Discussion on the right of defence leads to interruption of the session

Before the vote, the session was marked by disagreements on the possibility of parliamentarians discussing representation in plenary. Initially, President Dr. Erick informed that councilors should deliberate only on the referral of the case to the Board of Directors, without discussing the merits of the charges.

The orientation has raised questions, including demonstrations about Zampieri’s right to defend himself and the possibility of other MPs presenting their positions before the vote. Given the situation, the President temporarily interrupted the work and held a consultation with the Prosecutor’s Office and the Legislative Process Directorate.

After the resumption of the session, Dr. Erick reported that no regimental forecast had been identified for a broad discussion about representation at that time. In the meantime, he decided to give Guilherme Mazer and Ricardo Zampieri five minutes to present their demonstrations before the vote.

The other councilors were allowed to vote, but did not have the same space to discuss the case before the deliberation. The decision generated new demonstrations during the session, with parliamentarians questioning the conduct of the work.

House approves referral by nine votes to one

After the demonstrations of Mazer and Zampieri, the president put on a vote the referral of the representation to the Corregedoria. The plenary adopted the measure by nine votes in favour and one against. As announced by the Presidency, Guilherme Mazer and Ricardo Zampieri did not participate in the vote as they were, respectively, the author and the target of the representation.

During the voting, there were new questions about the conduct of the work. The councilor Geraldo Stocco expressed dissatisfaction with the restriction on the debate and requested his departure from the plenary. Subsequently, the Presidency also submitted to the Council a request for absence submitted by Ricardo Zampieri.

Despite the demonstrations and interruptions, the vote was concluded, and the president announced the approval of the referral of the representation to the Corregedoria. The official result announced in plenary was nine votes in favour and one against. The transcript made available does not allow to identify with certainty all the parliamentarians who participated in the vote nor the author of the only vote against.

Eder Pimentel explains in favour

After the approval, the councilman Eder Pimentel expressed himself to justify his vote in favor of the referral of the representation. The parliamentarian stated that he did not feel pleased to refer a colleague to the Corregedoria, but considered it necessary that the statements be clarified.

According to Eder, when a councilman presents suspicions that can affect members of the Legislative, it is important that the facts are proven to prevent all parliamentarians from being placed under suspicion before the population. The councilman defended that Zampieri has the opportunity to present to the Corregedoria the information of which he claims to have knowledge.

Eder also mentioned the possibility of applying a warning if the statements are not proven, stressing that his vote had no personal motivation. The demonstration, however, does not represent a decision on any penalty, which will depend on the procedures provided for in the Rules of Procedure.

The President says that voting does not mean condemnation.

After the referral of the representation, the mayor, Dr. Erick, again explained the procedures adopted during the session. The vote did not represent a condemnation of Ricardo Zampieri nor did it establish the existence of irregularities practiced by any member of the Legislative.

According to the president, the decision was limited to referral of the representation for analysis by the Corregedoria. Dr. Erick also justified the restriction on the debate, stating that a broad discussion on unexamined accusations could call into question the mandates of parliamentarians before due counting.

The President argued that the procedures for the analysis should be carried out by the competent body, in accordance with the regimental provisions.

What happens now to Ricardo Zampieri?

With the approval of the referral, the representation presented by Guilherme Mazer will continue to the Board of Directors of Câmara Municipal de Ponta Grossa. The body shall examine the case in accordance with the applicable rules, taking into account the statements that motivated the representation and the arguments presented by the parties concerned.

The vote on Monday did not determine the application of warning, suspension or any other penalty against Ricardo Zampieri. No documentary confirmation of the alleged irregularities mentioned by the parliamentary representative was presented during the discussion of the representation.

The case therefore remains in the sphere of institutional reckoning, without the result of the vote representing a conclusion on the veracity of Zampieri's statements.