The president of the (Supreme Federal Court), considers leaving the vote on the proposal on the implementation of a code of conduct for ministers until after the elections, in a strategy to gain time and try to obtain a unanimous result.
Fachin has considered with the team that, even with possible reservations, the agreement of all ministers would give more institutional strength to the guidelines and show that the court is united on the public ethics agenda.
The code of conduct is one of the measures defended by the President of the Supreme Court to address the image crisis experienced by the court, in the wake of the developments in the investigation into the .
From a personal point of view, Fachin understands that the measure is urgent to stop the wear and tear and that, in the ideal scenario, the October elections should not interfere with this agenda.
However, the minister began to consider this hypothesis after one with his colleagues last week. In these interlocutions, the president of the STF noted that the majority of internal criticism concerns not the content of the code, but the “timing”.
A group of ministers understands that Fachin’s offensive in favor of the code of conduct comes at a troubled time, leaving magistrates and the court itself subject to a new wave of attacks.
On the other hand, Fachin’s assistants claim that, as the STF is permanently under the spotlight, it is difficult to predict a moment of calm that would result in the perfect moment to move the proposal forward.
Despite this, the diagnosis made by Fachin is that the next few months could end up being positive so that he can better articulate with his peers, be able to overcome resistance and obtain the support of all his colleagues, even if there are occasional disagreements.
In Fachin’s calculations, the minister and ministers, and Kassio Nunes Marques would have no difficulty adhering to Fachin’s proposal and saying “yes” to the code.
The task of convincing, on the other hand, tends to be more difficult with ministers , and , while and would be unknown.
In interviews in recent days, Fachin gave ambiguous signals about leaving the discussion until after October. He told the newspaper O Globo that he does not agree, as Brazil has elections every two years and this, by nature, creates a permanently noisy environment.
He told the newspaper O Estado de S. Paulo that he recognized that “the argument is solid.” He also said that, although the code of conduct is an urgent measure, he is in no hurry to implement it.
Behind the scenes at the STF, Fachin’s statement was understood as a willingness to build a consensus, without disregarding that the repercussions of the Master case are not likely to subside anytime soon and that the court will be under scrutiny throughout the year.
One of the pieces of advice received by the president of the court was to take the code to trial in an in-person session, broadcast on TV Justiça. However, Fachin understands that this would embarrass ministers opposed to the proposal and seal their isolation.
Toffoli, rapporteur of the Master’s investigation, is at the center of the STF crisis, due to a relationship with one of the lawyers in the case, and business that associates his brothers with an investment fund linked to the bank, .
Moraes is also identified as having a wear factor, mainly due to defending the interests of the financial institution. The STF does not comment on these episodes.
As shown by Sheetin an attempt to persuade his colleagues, Fachin stated that the code of conduct is not his own idea, but .
The president of the STF also made an institutional gesture in defense of Toffoli. Fachin ended up releasing a public note on Thursday (22) in which he says that his colleague carries out “regular judicial supervision” of investigations into financial fraud.
Inspired by the model of the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany, Fachin’s initial draft provides, as one of the main points, the mandatory disclosure of funds received by ministers for participating in events and lectures.
It also limits gifts and advantages that can be received by Supreme Court ministers and restricts public statements by magistrates regarding cases being processed in court.
