The political scientist Magno Karl and the lawyer Soraia Mendes discussed, this Friday (20), in The Great Debate (from Monday to Friday, at 11 pm), whether the decisions of the STF (Supreme Federal Court) minister André Mendonça will give a new direction to the Master case.
This Friday, due to breaches of confidentiality in the “” with the PF (Federal Police) team that leads the “” and with the CPMI of the INSS.
For Karl, it is still too early to assess the impacts, but the decision. “Although the ten ministers signed the letter stating that there was no wrong conduct, when Mendonça reduces the level of secrecy imposed by Toffoli, he seems to disagree with the minister’s stances and shows that society was right to demand more transparency”, he stated.
According to the political scientist, there were no reasons for extraordinary secrecy or for removing evidence from the CPMI. “The measures that Mendonça takes, which contradict what Dias Toffoli took previously, make us compare the decisions of the two ministers.”
Soraia Mendes assessed that the decision is legally soundas it follows the jurisprudence of the STF. “Legally, in this case, the minister dealt with the STF jurisprudence, so it is not a decision to change course.”
She considered, however, that the political aspect could be explosive. “All this information framework in one election year It has blatant explosive potential and where this will lead we will only know by following the scenes in the next chapters. There is a possibility of a big explosion or nothing happens.”
Karl agreed that the use of information in an election year can be exploited to attack opponents or “end up in pizza”. “THE CPMI now there is proof and there are two scenarios when politicians are involved in an election year: either they will say that the issue there is very heavy and everything ends in pizza, or they will explore it until the end because they believe that the issues there must upset the opponent.”
