“I deeply regret the deliberation adopted today by the Federal Government”, stated the retired minister and former president of the (Supreme Federal Court), when commenting on the rejection of the Union’s attorney general, for the vacancy on the court.
The president’s nominee () in place of Luís Roberto Barroso, who resigned in October 2025, was . Messias is the first name not approved in 132 years, when the Senate refused to nominate Cândido Barata Ribeiro, chosen by then president Floriano Peixoto, in 1894.
For Celso de Mello, the current candidate had the “legal stature, professional qualifications and public record” consistent with approval, in addition to fulfilling the two requirements set out in the Constitution for investiture in the position: notable legal knowledge and an unblemished reputation. Messias is, for the former president of the STF, a “serious, prepared and experienced” jurist.
“The Senate’s deliberation appears to have been guided by motivations of a markedly political nature, unrelated to the objective assessment of the personal, functional and legal merits of the nominee”, continues the minister in a text sent to Sheet on Wednesday night (29).
He recognizes, however, that it is the Senate’s prerogative to accept or reject the name nominated by the President of the Republic. This competence, he also states, must be exercised with “public spirit, institutional responsibility and fidelity to constitutional parameters”.
The decision of the reviewing House is another chapter in the conflict between the Palácio do Planalto and the , which votes this Thursday (30) to overturn Lula’s vetoes on the Dosimetry PL and could increase the government’s wear and tear in an election year.
For Celso de Mello, there was no “legitimate cause” that justified the rejection by the Senate, which “missed an opportunity” by making an “unfortunate” decision.
According to him, the rejection of the name represents a moment in which politics is “dissociated from justice and institutional reason” and could compromise the functioning of institutions. “History, I am sure, will know how to distinguish between the dignity of the nominee and the impropriety of the rejection”, he states.
