If senators vote to dismiss an STF (Federal Supreme Court) minister accused of corruption, is this an attack on democracy? Of course. The fact that the Supreme Court played an important role in stopping a coup plot and trying its members does not place it above the law, ethics, or decorum. On the contrary: it is from ministers that we expect the most perfect impartiality and the most irreproachable conduct, given that no one can appeal their decisions.
The question of the dismissal of a minister is contaminated by polarization. Many people want Alexandre de Moraes to be impeached because of Bolsonaro’s conviction. Moraes was even the target of unfair US sanctions which, fortunately, no longer exist, but which have made the debate even more poisonous. Added to this is a series of questionable, even abusive decisions, such as the suspension of several people’s social networks for an indefinite period – to date we do not know how many there have been and whether they are banned. Even in these cases, talking about impeachment means addressing a controversial subject, in which the limits of the law pose a real threat to democracy, and giving an opinion on the merits of the decisions.
However, if the topic is corruption, bias, conflicts of interest, or other behavior inconsistent with being a judge, the impeachment debate becomes much less polarized.
Banco Master retained the services of Moraes’ wife’s office for 129 million reais under a generic contract, without designating specific tasks. For example, there is no indication that Viviane Barci de Moraes went to the bank’s headquarters. Her husband – as reported by journalist Malu Gaspar – asked the president of the Central Bank to authorize the sale of Master. If so, it’s serious.
When an STF minister calls you, you answer. When he asks you something, it’s not a free conversation with no major consequences. It’s a request that, if nothing else, will make you think long and hard about the consequences of obeying or refusing. Using your public authority to intercede – even informally – on behalf of a business that benefits your family is behavior obviously incompatible with the position of judge. Not only impartiality but also the appearance of impartiality is essential to guarantee the legitimacy of your decisions.
Any power that is not limited has a tendency to grow and corrupt. The same security used to circumvent and re-sign the law under democratic pretexts fuels the certainty that they can make millionaire sums from corporations and lobbyists, throw naughty parties and plane trips without major consequences. It would be great if the Supreme Court itself took steps to prevent similar practices in the future. The “code of ethics” proposed by Fachin is an essential step to moralize the conduct of ministers, but it does not exclude external restraint.
The Supreme Court, like Congress and the presidency, is fundamental to Brazil. This is why the mistakes committed by its members must be punished. The Senate must investigate the matter, demand explanations from the minister and, if these are not convincing, consider – as is and must be its prerogative – dismissal.
PRESENT LINK: Did you like this text? Subscribers can access seven free accesses from any link per day. Just click on the blue F below.
About The Author
