Operation Shark: Prosecutors Respond to Carlos Sena and Reject Any Attempt to Politicize the Judiciary

In a statement released in Praia, ASSIMP expressed concern over remarks made by the official on Wednesday, November 4, when he stated that, from now on, no case would be “shelved” and questioned why wiretaps conducted in 2016 and 2017 only led to arrests in 2026.

In light of these statements and the interpretations circulating in the public sphere regarding the alleged political motivation behind the Public Prosecutor’s Office’s actions, the association considers it necessary to reaffirm the autonomy of judges and the constitutional principle of the separation of powers.

“It is not the role of the political branch to question the timing of procedural steps”

ASSIMP maintains that criminal investigations and the prosecution of criminal cases fall within the purview of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, which acts autonomously and in accordance with the law, based on criteria of legality and objectivity.

In this regard, it considers that it is not the role of the political branch to assess, direct, or publicly question the timing, pace, or appropriateness of procedural steps.

The association emphasizes that statements made by members of the government carry greater institutional weight than individual opinions and, when they concern ongoing proceedings, can cast suspicion on judges and undermine citizens’ trust in the justice system.

Therefore, it calls for greater “discretion, restraint, and a sense of statesmanship” on the part of government officials.

ASSIMP Rejects Insinuations of Political Favoritism

Regarding the proceedings carried out as part of Operation Shark, the union clarifies that they were initiated by the Public Prosecutor’s Office in accordance with the current legal framework and under judicial oversight, specifically through the initial judicial interrogation of the detainees.

According to ASSIMP, the timing of each procedural step depends on technical and legal considerations—including the time required for the investigation and the consolidation of evidence—and not on the identity or political connections of those under investigation.

The association thus rejects any insinuation that the investigations might be guided by political affinities or expediency, whether to benefit or to harm certain individuals.

The organization goes further and states that it repudiates any attempt to influence the actions of judges or to politicize criminal proceedings, regardless of their origin.

The presumption of innocence must be respected

Despite the position it has taken, ASSIMP clarifies that it does not comment on specific cases or particular individuals, citing the need to respect judicial confidentiality.

It also notes that all those involved are entitled to the presumption of innocence and that the adjudication of criminal matters is the exclusive purview of the courts, not social media or public opinion.

The association recognizes freedom of expression as a fundamental right but maintains that its exercise must be accompanied by institutional responsibility, particularly on the part of those who hold government positions.

Operation Shark at the center of political and institutional debate

This stance comes at a time when the most recent phase of Operation Shark, launched by the Judicial Police, resulted in the arrest of 20 people, including four National Police officers, five prison guards, and a high-ranking official in the public administration.

Those arrested are suspected of crimes related to drug trafficking, money laundering, and criminal association, among others.

Carlos Sena Teixeira’s statements had already prompted a reaction from the Movement for Democracy (MpD), which questioned the official’s references to allegedly shelved cases and demanded respect for the autonomy of judicial institutions.

In its statement, ASSIMP makes no partisan references, focusing its position on defending the autonomy of the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the need to preserve the separation of powers.

The organization concludes by reaffirming that Cape Verdeans’ trust in the justice system depends on respect for the autonomy of institutions and by guaranteeing that it will continue to defend an autonomous, valued, and united judiciary.