Abel Chivukuvuku, who saw the Constitutional Court, after successive arguments, definitively reject the legalization of the party, in December 2020, questions how it was possible for documents recognized by the State apparatus itself to be considered invalid.
"The law says that we have to bring 7500 signatures with recognition from the administrations. We went to the administrations and they dealt with the cases, which we paid, we go to the court and they say it is not valid. I'm the culprit", asked Chivukuvuku, attributing possible failures to the state administration.
"We even went further, we went back to the administrations, we went to the notary to recognize the signatures, the court says that the notary is not valid. So how does that look," said the politician, who has been trying to make PRA-JÁ Servir Angola viable since 2019.
"That is why we continue to litigate with the court for the legalization of PRA-JÁ, but we are also studying to file a lawsuit against the Ministry of Territory Administration because after all it is the one that gives false documents", said the political leader, underlining that the administrations are coordinated by that ministry.
"Then they have to give us back the money we paid", he complained, also admitting to sue the Mystery of Justice, which oversees notary services.
"So if we went there, we paid - and it's not cheap - and after all, it's not worth what we're transmitting to the country", insisted the political leader.
Abel Chivukuvuku left the National Union for the Total Independence of Angola (UNITA) in 2012, where he had been a militant since 1974 and a former leader, and, in the same year, he founded the coalition Convergence Broad for the Salvation of Angola - Electoral Coalition (CASA-CE).
In 2019, he was removed from the presidency by the constituent parties of the coalition for alleged "breach of trust" and in August of that year began the process of legalizing his new political formation.
The legalization process of PRA-JÁ Servir Angola has dragged on since August 2019, with successive 'leads' from the Constitutional Court, alleging irregularities in the documentation presented for this purpose.
