Fabian Figueiredo's complaint against Chega goes to parliament transparency committee

The complaint against Chega

Bloco de Esquerda deputy Fabian Figueiredo filed a complaint with the President of the Assembly of the Republic, José Pedro Aguiar-Branco, on Wednesday evening, 28 October. It accuses André Ventura, the leader of Chega, of publishing images of Figueiredo that were recorded inside the parliament building without his knowledge or consent. The complaint also alleges threats. Figueiredo asked for an inquiry into who recorded the footage and how it was circulated. He said he does not know who filmed him, at what time, with what equipment, or in what capacity that person was present. In the complaint he put the point this way:

“They are facts that the Assembly of the Republic has the means to establish, and the signatory does not.”

Ventura's posts and the leg injury claim

According to the complaint, Ventura published the footage on X, Instagram, Facebook and TikTok on Wednesday, 28 October. The text accompanying the images suggested that Figueiredo was faking a leg injury, which he attributed to a police charge during a housing rights protest at Rossio in Lisbon. Figueiredo says he was immobilised, assaulted and removed from the square that night. The police intervention took place in the early hours of Sunday, 25 October, and the complaint says Ventura has directed a series of posts at him since that day. Figueiredo also rejected an earlier claim by Ventura that he had left the protest before the charge.

Figueiredo further cites a comment by Chega deputy Marcus Santos under one of the Instagram posts, which he describes as an apology for violence and a direct threat to his physical integrity. The complaint treats that comment as a separate matter from the filming.

Referral to the parliamentary committee

On Thursday, 29 October, Aguiar-Branco sent the complaint to the Transparency and Statute of Deputies Committee in a despacho that SIC has seen. In that document he wrote:

“It is for the committee to decide on opening the inquiry, carry out the steps it considers appropriate and draw the conclusions and recommendations it finds relevant.”

He framed the central question as whether the conduct stays within legitimate freedom of expression and political communication, or whether it carries weight under the deputies' statutory and conduct duties. He acknowledged that a parliamentary mandate includes broad freedom of expression, including sharp criticism on social networks. He added that this freedom does not by itself override deputies' rights to image, honour and private life, which are constitutionally protected. The comment attributed to Marcus Santos, he wrote, raises a distinct question about the limits of language between holders of parliamentary mandates, since its references to possible physical aggression may conflict with duties of courtesy.

What happens next

The committee now decides whether to open an inquiry into the filming and the sharing of the images. The complaint also asks parliament to rule whether it considers it tolerable for a deputy to be filmed without consent inside the building and for that footage to be shared for party political purposes. The referral sets the committee the task of weighing those rights against the freedom of political debate.