Brazil’s Supreme Court began deliberations Tuesday on whether Justice Alexandre de Moraes, the man who led the trial against former President Jair Bolsonaro, should face an investigation in a graft case. The court’s own top tier is now eating itself in public, with the same institutions that claim to guard democracy locked in a fight over who gets to police whom. Ordinary Brazilians watched the spectacle unfold while the machinery of power argued over its own rules.
Outside the court Tuesday, several dozen Bolsonaro supporters protested, calling for de Moraes to leave the court or be impeached by the Senate. Their demand was simple enough. Remove the judge. Use the Senate. Keep the fight inside the same narrow channels that always decide things from above. The crowd stood outside while the justices inside handled the matter as a question of procedure, authority, and survival.
Who Has the Power
The two Supreme Court justices at the center of what the article described as an unprecedented crisis at the top court are perceived as being at opposing ends of Brazil’s polarized political spectrum. That split matters because it shows how the state’s highest legal chamber has become another battleground in the country’s ruling-class war, with judges, politicians, and police all circling the same prize. In October, President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva is expected to face off with Sen. Flávio Bolsonaro, Bolsonaro’s son, in what is likely to be a close election, as it was four years ago.
Many Brazilians spent their morning glued to their TVs as the court decided whether de Moraes should be included in the probe into the shuttered Banco Master, a case that has ensnared high-ranking politicians and members of the judiciary. That’s the hierarchy in plain view: people at the bottom watching, while the people at the top decide whether one of their own gets dragged into a graft case tied to a collapsed bank and a web of elite connections.
In his first remarks Tuesday, de Moraes denied any wrongdoing. He also accused Mendonca of waging a vendetta against him for political reasons, prompting a brief shouting match between the two. De Moraes said, “(Mendonca) is working for a political group that tried to stage a coup in this country,” and he also accused his colleague of requesting the federal police to illegally investigate him and his family. Investigations into Brazilian Supreme Court justices must be authorized by the full court. Mendonca denied the accusation and said he would provide more details when he spoke later in the day.
What They Call Accountability
Mendonca unsealed documents last week showing that the head of Banco Master, Daniel Vorcaro, who is now in prison, sought legal advice from de Moraes as he was about to be arrested. The documents also showed the bank had a contract worth 130 million reais ($23 million) with the law firm of de Moraes’ wife. Those numbers hang over the case like a ledger of influence, money, and access. The bank is shuttered. Vorcaro is in prison. The legal and judicial elite remain in motion.
Tuesday’s session began after a 40-minute delay with Chief Justice Luiz Edson Fachin reading the federal police report unsealed by Mendonca last week. The report contained documents showing that Vorcaro used legal advice from de Moraes. Fachin said he scheduled Tuesday’s session to deal with “a difficult moment” for the court. He said, “Disagreements are legitimate. Personal confrontations are not,” and added, “The decision is up to the full court, not a single justice. We cannot give to future generations a smaller Supreme Court than the one we received. But that cannot mean the absence of disagreements.”
That language sounds tidy enough. It also keeps the decision inside the same sealed chamber, where legitimacy is managed by the institution itself. The court decides. The full court decides. The public watches. The structure stays intact.
As soon as Fachin finished his opening remarks, two of the 10 Supreme Court justices requested not to vote on the decision to probe de Moraes. Kassio Nunes, who heads Brazil’s electoral court, said his position does not allow him to take part in the decision because its result could bear some impact on the campaign trail. José Dias Toffoli, who previously stepped down from overseeing the Banco Master case because of his links to Vorcaro, also refused to vote. Toffoli once again denied any wrongdoing in his connection with the banker.
The Election Trap
The October election hangs over all of it. Lula and Flávio Bolsonaro are expected to face off in what is likely to be a close race, and the court fight is already bleeding into that campaign trail. Kassio Nunes said exactly that when he refused to vote, citing the possible impact on the election. So the same institutions that claim neutrality are already calculating how their decisions will land in the next round of elite competition.
That’s the pattern. A graft case. A bank with high-ranking names attached. A court split by political loyalties. A Senate floated as the fix. An election waiting in the wings. The people below get the theater, the delays, the shouting, and the polished language about legitimacy. The people above keep the levers in their hands.