Action seeks to force the installation of the Senate Ethics Council, a necessary step for representation against the president of the House
The Party says it has contacted the (Supreme Federal Court) to try to unlock the installation of the Senate Ethics Council and allow the analysis of a representation that calls for the removal of the president of the House, (União Brasil – AP). The action was announced by the senator (Novo – CE) in a video published by the party on Friday (June 12, 2026).
In the post, Girão and the councilor from Curitiba (PR) state that they have filed a writ of mandamus with the Supreme Court so that the Court can determine the opening of the collegiate body. The party’s justification is that the Ethics Council has not yet been installed in the Senate, which prevents the request against Alcolumbre from being processed.
The representation against the president of the Senate had been presented by Novo to the Senate Secretariat 2 months ago. According to Girão, the request is based, among other points, on the non-installation of Banco Master’s CPMI, which, according to the senator, would already have a sufficient number of signatures to be created.
“More than ever we need this investigation that involves the president of Congress, the PT of Bahia and many other powerful people who need explanationss”, said Girão in the video.
The Novo charge gained strength after the magazine Look published that Daniel Vorcaro, founder of Banco Master, had transferred US$30 million to Alcolumbre. The value is equivalent to around R$153 million. According to the report, the money had been deposited in an account abroad as payment for supporting a demand of interest to the bank.
Alcolumbre denied having received money from Vorcaro. In a statement, the president of the Senate stated that the published information is “absolutely false” and said that the case will be faced “with maximum firmness”.
Vorcaro’s defense presented proposals to inform the Federal Police, but the negotiations were rejected by investigators. The PF understood that the reports did not provide unprecedented evidence that would justify benefits to the former banker.
