A public disagreement between a sitting judge and the institution she serves has thrown an unusual spotlight on Portugal's constitutional safeguards against extremist politics. Maria Benedita Urbano, a judge at the Portugal Constitutional Court, told an audience in Macau that the Court had received a request to dissolve the Chega party, only for the Court itself to issue a rare same-day correction stating no such case is pending before it.
Why This Matters
• The Portugal Constitutional Court is the only body that can ban a political party, but only after receiving a formal request from the Public Prosecution Service.
• A lawyer's bid to outlaw Chega has been sitting with prosecutors since October 2025, with no decision yet.
• The public clash raises questions about judicial impartiality and the procedural hurdles to banning a party in a democracy.
• Chega faces separate ongoing issues, including links to members arrested in a neo-Nazi crackdown and internal elections declared invalid by the Court.
A Judge's Comments Trigger Institutional Clarification
The controversy began during the 29th Meeting of Public Law Professors in Macau, where Judge Maria Benedita Urbano was speaking about the challenges facing constitutional courts. In response to questions, she confirmed that the Portugal Constitutional Court had received a request regarding the dissolution of Chega, the Right-wing party led by André Ventura.
Urbano, who also teaches at the University of Coimbra, remarked personally that "parties of extremes should be prohibited in Portugal," while acknowledging the legal reality that it is "very difficult" to determine whether a party qualifies as fascist. She cited specific hypothetical criteria: "If the leader does a Nazi salute, or puts up billboards against certain ethnic groups, is that enough?"
Hours later, the Portugal Constitutional Court—headquartered at Palácio Ratton in Lisbon—issued a written clarification to the Lusa news agency. The statement read: "Following news broadcast this morning by Lusa, the Constitutional Court clarifies that there is no pending request for the illegalization of any political party."
The Court explained that the initiatives mentioned by the judge were submitted to the Public Prosecution Service, and were transmitted to the Court "merely for information."
The Legal Hurdle: What It Takes to Ban a Party
Portugal's Constitution establishes one of the strongest protections for political pluralism in Europe. Under Article 175, only the Constitutional Court can declare the dissolution of a political movement—but crucially, it can only do so upon a formal request from the Public Prosecution Service.
This creates a procedural gate that has never been fully tested. Lawyer António Garcia Pereira first filed a complaint with the Public Prosecution Service in October 2025, demanding that prosecutors trigger the legal mechanism to dissolve Chega. He reinforced that request in February 2026.
Garcia Pereira argues that the party violates constitutional provisions prohibiting "organizations that are racist or espouse fascist ideology." His filing cites the party's alleged links to the neo-Nazi group 1143, as well as a court-ordered removal of campaign posters by André Ventura that targeted Roma people during the presidential election campaign.
As of September 2026, the Public Prosecution Service has not issued a decision. Garcia Pereira told reporters that the last communication he received, before judicial vacations, indicated that investigative inquiries were ongoing and some witnesses had not yet been heard.
Accusations of Judicial Impropriety
The contradiction between Judge Urbano's statements and the Court's official position quickly escalated from procedural confusion to ethical accusation. Garcia Pereira accused the judge of trying to "prepare public opinion" for the position she believes the Court should take.
"A member of a collegiate body, and even more so a judge on a court, obviously cannot be expressing opinions about what she believes the body's deliberation should be," Garcia Pereira told Lusa. He called her conduct "of enormous ethical gravity" and "disciplinary reprehensible," suggesting she was attempting to create favorable public opinion for a decision he considers "profoundly wrong."
Judge Urbano had also used the Macau event to lament that the Portugal Constitutional Court faces an "excessive number" of requests and complained about "the fashion of preventive oversight." She noted that the judges had not had "time to decide" on the Chega matter.
Her comments about Chega not having altered its statutes—previously rejected by the Court—and having organized a subsequent congress, highlighted what she called instances where "Constitutional Court decisions are not always respected."
The Shadow of Operation Irmandade
The debate over Chega's legality does not exist in a vacuum. In January 2026, Portugal's Judiciary Police launched Operation Irmandade, arresting 37 individuals connected to the neo-Nazi group 1143.
Among those detained were current or former members and candidates of Chega. The Socialist Party publicly challenged Chega to clarify its members' involvement, citing "real and documented evidence" of links.
One detainee, a coordinator for 1143 in Santo Tirso who was also a Chega member, alleged that Chega deputy Rui Afonso paid group members' party dues and gave them money to vote. Afonso denied the accusations, attributing them to internal party squabbles.
Garcia Pereira's legal filings specifically invoke these arrests as evidence of the party's alleged extremist ties.
What This Means for Residents
No immediate legal threat to Chega exists. The Public Prosecution Service moves slowly, and even if it eventually asks the Portugal Constitutional Court to rule, proving a party is "fascist" faces an extremely high bar.
Portuguese democracy prioritizes political pluralism. The Constitution channels any attempt to ban a party through a demanding two-stage process involving both prosecutors and a super-majority of Constitutional Court judges. This protects smaller parties from being targeted by shifting political winds, but also means extremist movements can operate until they cross clear legal lines.
The party's internal governance remains problematic. In May 2025, the Portugal Constitutional Court confirmed that Chega's internal elections in 2023 and 2024 were invalid. While the party continues to function legally, these procedural failures could complicate its standing—though they fall short of grounds for dissolution.
Voters and observers should distinguish between criminal cases and political rhetoric. The arrests linked to 1143 involve specific individuals accused of hate crimes, discrimination, and illegal weapons possession. These are separate legal matters from the constitutional question of whether a political party should be banned.
The Bigger Picture
The unusual public rift within the Portugal Constitutional Court underscores the pressure the institution faces as the country's political landscape shifts. Chega has grown from a fringe movement to a significant parliamentary force, and its rhetoric tests Portuguese democracy's tolerance for speech that pushes constitutional limits.
Judge Urbano's comments in Macau about constitutional courts being "attacked" by populism, and facing methods like "financial asphyxia" and the replacement of judges, reflected a broader concern about the resilience of democratic institutions. Yet her decision to comment directly on a matter that could come before her court—framed by a lawyer involved in the case as an attempt to sway public opinion—demonstrates how even the guardians of constitutional order can find themselves on shaky ground.
For now, the legal question remains parked with the Public Prosecution Service. Whatever prosecutors decide will set in motion—or halt—a constitutional process Portugal has never completed: the formal banning of a political party.
