“It is important that the rapporteur, Rep. Guilherme Dirit, retracts the new opinion he presented on the anti-criminal faction bill sent by President Lula to the National Congress. He withdrew proposals that weakened the work of the federal police against organized crime and those that threaten national sovereignty. It is also important that the rapporteur maintains the central proposals of the government project,” Gleissy stated on social media.
At the end of the afternoon, the licensed Minister of Security of São Paulo announced a third version of the text that would no longer link crimes committed by factions to those of terrorist groups. Derrett proposed the creation of new criminal types within the scope of the so-called “legal framework to combat organized crime.” This change seeks to reduce resistance among government supporters and enable the proposal to be approved in the plenary session of the Council.
“The Ministry of Justice will now conduct a more detailed analysis of the text to guide the government’s positions,” Jalisi said. “Our goal is to combat organized crime and guarantee the population’s right to security.” National Secretary for Legislative Affairs, Marivaldo Pereira, also saw the new changes as positive but noted that there were still problems with the text:
– It is a great victory for the government to preserve the powers of the National Front and remove its comparison to terrorism. But the report still suffers from many problems. Let’s delve deeper into the analysis.
The new and third versions of the anti-factional bill, drafted by the federal government and reported by Derrett, preserve the jurisdiction of the federal police in investigations against organized crime and rule out equating the behavior of criminal factions with that of terrorist groups. This was what was expected in the previous two texts, and the decision was withdrawn on Tuesday amid severe criticism from members of the Ministry of Justice, the Federal Police, and public security experts.
The first version of the project required the “joint or coordinated” action of the federal police to “provocation of the state governor.”
Later, in another article, Derrett relaxed this section and subjected the actions of the national police to “communication with the competent state authorities” or “upon a reasoned request from the chief of state police or the state prosecutor’s office” – something that was still considered problematic. In the new version of the project, the rapporteur deleted all these excerpts.
Within government, the change in the powers of the National Police prompted a strong reaction from ministers, such as Glee Hoffman, who described the change as a “safe behaviour” for crime. A video posted on official government networks described Dirit’s changes as an “anti-investigation policy” and issued a warning calling for the defense of national police duties. “The new text suggests that the federal police can only act against criminal groups when provoked by conservatives, which in practice means reducing the work of the federal police once crime spreads across the country,” he says. The newspaper concluded: “Who has an interest in preventing the National Front from moving? And who has an interest in complicating factional fighting?”
Derrett rated this interpretation as “wrong,” but acknowledged that he would make changes to the proposal to make the issue clearer.
– It opened the door to fabricating this false narrative that I was weakening the work of the National Front. This is not true. If the problem lies in the conflict between the competencies of the National Front and national sovereignty, then we will discuss it. Let’s keep the script strict, and I’m not going to give that up,” Derrett said. — We will provide a legal framework to combat organized crime in Brazil.
About The Author
