Top court judge points to ‘intolerance to the simple exercise of fundamental rights’
Justice José Maria Dias Azedo has issued a voting declaration highlighting his disagreement in a judgment, made by a panel of three judges, against former University of Saint Joseph (USJ) academic Éric Sautedé.
In the context of the verdict issued collectively, Justice Azedo outlined his argument in the voting declaration.
In a document the Times has obtained containing the declaration, the judge questioned the grounds on which the higher education institution had dismissed the academic.
He pointed out that, over the years of his service at the university, the political scientist was promoted to higher positions several times, indicating that the institution must have been happy with his work.
“[If] the aforementioned proven factuality even demonstrates a favorable and meritorious evolution of the professional and academic performance of the present appellant [who was promoted] from assistant professor to coordinating professor, […] it is clear that the termination of his employment contract for ‘reasons’ that were found to constitute a sudden disagreement and mere intolerance in relation to the simple exercise of fundamental rights expressly consecrated, to which each and every person is entitled (in their private life), without any (at least) evidence of any collision with, disrespect for or deviation from (objectively) the ‘Statutes’ which regulate the defendant’s institutional activity,” Azedo declared in the document.
USJ lawyer Filipe Regência Figueiredo, providing comment to local Portuguese newspaper Hoje Macau on the verdict, considered the TUI decision to be fair, and remarked that, at last, the case was finally over.
When asked to comment on the judgment against him, Sautedé told the Times, “Although, as this was my last try, I have to make do with that. Given the circumstances, the very fact that there was a dissenting voice within the panel of judges clearly indicates that I had grounds to sue the university.”
The academic continued: “Clearly, the law as it exists in Macau does not effectively protect [those]who shoulder the responsibilities of free speech, be they academics or journalists. It also shows that Macau might be a signatory of international covenants and conventions, but these are pointless if they are not transcribed in local laws.”
He hopes it will be regarded as jurisprudence in future cases.
In January last year, the Court of First Instance (TJB) reached a verdict rejecting all claims filed by Sautedé, who accused the institution of unfairly dismissing him.
Sautedé was dismissed from USJ in June 2014, allegedly due to Sautedé’s political comments and values, which were not in line with USJ’s principle of staying uninvolved in political debates.
In 2014, Sautedé filed a lawsuit against USJ, hoping to be awarded a total of MOP1.3 million in compensation for his unfair dismissal. MOP800,000 of this was to be for material damages and the remainder for damage to his reputation.
In an earlier court hearing, Peter Stilwell, the former USJ rector, stated that Sautedé was dismissed by USJ without just cause due to his political remarks.
USJ regarded his dismissal – even without just cause – to be legal and legitimate. However, Sautedé refuted the claim by arguing that the dismissal was illegal, as it violated the right to freedom of expression and academic freedom, as well as the principle of equality and non-discrimination stipulated in the Basic Law.
The TJB confirmed that Sautedé’s dismissal did not violate his academic freedom and freedom of speech, as the USJ rector did not bar him from making political comments at the time. Staff reporter
