The theft of weapons and explosives from the Tancos military base and the dumping of similar equipment on nearby wasteland months later, continues to raise suspicions that the public are not being told the truth and that politicians and military personnel are lying.
The Prime Minister, António Costa, is "obviously fully available" to respond to the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry, set up to look into the bizarre events that started in June 2017 with the break-in at the Tancos base.
Faced with a growing belief that the PM knows more than he is letting on, MPs on the Commission will call Costa to give an account of the information flow between the military and government and his involvement.
One obvious area for investigation is the discrepancies between the material listed as stolen and the list of arms and explosives dumped in a field in October 2017.
We do know that the return of the stolen material was a staged action between the Military Judiciary Police and the alleged thief, a former solider previously indicted for drug and arms trafficking.
The list of returned equipment that was sent to the Parliamentary Committee of Defence, showed that five grenades and more than 30 explosive charges were missing and that more material had been returned than was reported stolen.
MPs and the media are asking, is this another ‘accounting error’ or were the returned weapons actually the ones that had been stolen?
Eight military officers have been arrested on suspicion of a cover-up. This led to the resignation of the Minister of Defence, Azeredo Lopes in mid-October.
The Minister of Internal Affairs has been asked if he had any knowledge or information of the return of the weapons. In a written reply to a parliamentary question, Eduardo Cabrita denied that he had "any knowledge or information regarding the recovery of the guns," adding that he was not minister at the time of the return of the weapons.
The civilian part of Operation Hubris has seen two sergeants and two guards from the GNR, questioned under a disciplinary procedure."
The inconsistencies raise suspicions that the original theft was larger than reported or that the returned arms and ammunition came from a larger stock of previously stolen military equipment.
This second possibility raises the intriguing prospect of institutionalised theft of military equipment, sold on to the highest bidder, including terrorists.
