The statement in which the Senator (-PI) attributes the advance of negotiations on the amnesty of those involved in the coup plot to an assessment of the president of the (Supreme Court), caused the irritation of court ministers with the colleague.
Barroso contradicted members of the Court by stating that, after the trial and the eventual conviction of the defendants, the amnesty would be a political decision. , the speech was interpreted by pockets as an endorsement to the outbreak of an articulation in the congress to grant pardon to the former president ().
In an interview with SheetCiro Nogueira, who is president of the PP and was Minister of Bolsonaro, said that the
Contrary to Barroso’s thesis, an STF minister made harsh criticism, under reserve, to the statement of the President of the Court. This magistrate points out that the democratic regime is a stone clause of the Constitution, and it is absurd to consider forgiveness one.
The same minister classified Barroso’s assessment as a barbarity, as he understood that the case would not be susceptible to amnesty – before it or after the trial.
One court wing considered the declaration as a disrespect to the majority of the court, which would be contrary to the amnesty. Barroso would have given a justification for the outbreak of a Bolsonarist movement in Congress without consulting the Court.
A magistrate adds that, from a legal point of view, there would not be even an impediment to amnesty before the court decision, as Barroso said.
Another minister, also contrary to amnesty, evaluates that the view expressed by Barroso is minority in the plenary. He estimates that only three or four of the 11 STF members think this way, which would include the court’s own president.
In the words of this magistrate, there is a “zero chance” of the Court to endeavor a broad amnesty, even if it has mass support on.
This minister interprets Barroso’s statements as an attempt to make a political gesture at a time considered delicate, given the constant threats of US government sanctions to members of the Supreme.
Ministers remember that Barroso gave one of the eight votes on the STF that invalidated the pardon granted by Bolsonaro to then deputy Daniel Silveira. In 2022, he was convicted by the Supreme Court for incitement to the violent abolition of the Democratic Rule of Law and coercion in the course of the process.
So president, Bolsonaro granted the pardon to the parliamentarian, but the measure was overthrown by the court. At the time, Barroso accompanied the thesis that the act of the president had been marked by deviation of purpose and pointed out that the Supreme was prerogative to evaluate the acts of the executive.
“In a democratic rule of constitutional law, who says the meaning and scope of the Constitution and the laws is the supreme,” he said.
Another minister who voted for the overthrow of the pardon was Luiz Fux, who has given signs of alignment to the defense of the defendants of the attacks of 8 January and the coup plot. In that trial, Fux stated that he would not be forgiveness of Congress in the case of crimes against democracy.
“I understand that a crime against the Democratic Rule of Law is a political and impassive crime of amnesty, since the Democratic Rule of Law is a stone clause that not even the National Congress, through an amendment, can suppress it,” said the minister.
Sought to comment on the statement of Ciro Nogueira, Barroso did not comment.
