Ho Chio Meng trial | Valente reveals ‘confidential expenses fund’

The trial of the former Public Prosecutor General, Ho Chio Meng, is coming to a close as the last witnesses enrolled by the defense were called yesterday to testify at the Court of Final Appeal (TUI).

The Macau Lawyers Association (AAM) president Neto Valente and lawmaker Leonel Alves were scheduled to testify. The session began with a request from defense lawyer Oriana Pun for a rescheduling of the witness hearing, explaining to the court that Alves was unable to testify yesterday.  This is because Alves, as a lawmaker, requires formal authorization to testify from the Legislative Assembly (AL) president Ho Iat Seng, and such authorization had yet to be granted at the time of trial.

The president of the TUI, Sam Hou Fai, replied that the authorization request should have been made earlier, and denied Pun’s request to have the hearing delayed. Instead, he authorized Alves’ testimony to be delivered in writing.

Valente proceeded to testify, saying that he met Ho many years ago before taking the office as Prosecutor General and while Ho was deputy Commissioner Against Corruption.

Valente recalled that Ho had always conducted himself properly despite the two of them holding different views on many occasions. This remained true throughout the course of their professional relationship, especially as Valente’s position as AAM president required him to meet with Ho on multiple occasions to discuss matters related to the judiciary system and present complaints from lawyers.

Questioned by Pun about the accusations made against Ho, Valente mentioned his awareness of a “confidential expenses special fund” that depends directly from the Chief Executive and is intended for use in confidential matters by the judiciary and security authorities.

He also expressed his awareness that, “not all activities done by the authorities in the search for criminals and other highly confidential matters go into paper,” noting that sometimes, “we only get to know that certain diligences were made after it’s concluded.”

Valente referred to two particular cases to illustrate his point. In the first, local authorities made “secret” diligences in Cambodia to try to bring a person wanted in the MSAR to justice. He also referred to the “recent finding” of one of his kidnappers in mainland China in a case that goes back to 2001.  After his kidnap in Macau, Neto Valente was rescued in a dramatic police raid. One suspected kidnapper leapt six stories to his death while trying to escape. Two other people were detained during the dawn raid.

Valente also said he knew of Ho’s political aspirations through informal talks with several “well related contacts in the mainland”, noting that Ho was “very respected, well related and supported in China.”

In response to the question of whether he thought that Ho had protected the interests of the Public Prosecutions Office (MP) and of the MSAR during his time leading the office, Valente said, “I have no reason to think otherwise.”

Indirectly asking about the functions previously given to Wang Xian Di, Pun asked if it was possible and if it would make sense for Ho to recruit staff to do “low-profile” tasks and even informants.

Valente responded, “It is a fact that this happens. Even nowadays in the duties of security many times we resort to such kind of contacts.”

Regarding the large number of criminal swindling accusations, Valente also said, “It is hard to believe that things are exactly like that. But that’s my opinion as a citizen”. He noted that above and beyond the sheer number of allegations against Ho, the case had created a “bad [public] image of the justice and of the judiciary system of Macau”.

The prosecution sought to cross- examine Valente, remarking his testimony was just “rumors,” to which Valente responded, “not really rumors but people’s opinion,” noting once more that it “is bad that in society what is being said is that this is not a serious trial and that the accused had already been sentenced from the start”.

The MP also questioned Valente on whether he thought it reasonable and legitimate for Ho to make use of MP’s resources to bolster his “political aspirations”, to which he responded, “Of course not!”

Sam Hou Fai requested the defence and prosecution to refrain from asking questions based on opinion and commentary and to stick to facts. Fai then interrupted the enquiry session and ended the court session shortly after.

On the sidelines of the session,  Pun mentioned that she had a total 19 witnesses for the defense who could not be present in the court. She remarked that about half of that number would present testimony in writing to the Court of Final Appeal. She noted that it was difficult for the remaining witnesses since she did not have direct contact with them.