In an interview with the Roda Viva program, on Monday (22), the minister of the (Supreme Federal Court) criticized the minister, rapporteur of the Master case, showed his dissatisfaction with the president of the court, for the way he has been conducting the debate on a code of ethics for the Supreme Court and was questioned about transparency of magistrates’ income.
At times, Gilmar avoided answers. He also issued his opinions on ongoing cases, which, in theory, is prohibited by the
See controversial points from the interview below:
Mendonça’s ‘blunder’
In the conversation we had, for example, André Mendonça said that he had received a lawyer making a selective plea bargain proposal. And here there is already an impropriety. Why? The law does not allow the rapporteur or the judge to participate in the denunciation. The agreement is between the Public Ministry or the Federal Police and the whistleblower. So, here, there is already something of a blunder
The minister criticized the situation that he may have to deal with as a member of the Second Panel, where the Master’s case is being processed.
Gilmar was asked whether Alexandre de Moraes, rapporteur of the coup plot case at the STF, had not made the same error when discussing the accusation of lieutenant colonel Mauro Cid, former aide-de-camp of (PL).
The absence of statements about the case of the attempted coup d’état is justified, according to the dean, because he did not specifically participate in that trial. The criminal review of the case, however, must be judged by the Second Panel of the Supreme Court, of which Gilmar is a member.
The action was proposed in May by Bolsonaro’s defense. The PGR (Attorney General’s Office) spoke out against annulment of the conviction, and rapporteur Kassio Nunes Marques can now ask for the case to be included on the agenda.
From Toffoli it passes to Mendonça. Then, Minister André [Mendonça] releases an order that had been given by the then rapporteur not to allow the CPI [do INSS] breach of confidentiality. And there was what we know, the breach of confidentiality, including intimate conversations and revelation. […] Many leaks, arrests of family members, are elements that lead to at least one concern and similarities with what happened previously
When comparing the Master case to Lava Jato, the minister cited the leak of personal messages. In the case of the banker’s communications, public disclosure took place after the . The messages included intimate conversations between former owner Master and his then-fiancée Martha Graeff.
In Lava Jato, one of the most emblematic episodes involved the disclosure of wiretaps of conversations between then-president Dilma Rousseff and now-president Lula (PT), in 2016.
Lula, at the time, was prevented from taking office in the Civil House by decision of Gilmar, who cited dialogues with the then president as an argument for the thesis of “deviation of purpose” in the appointment.
I still remember saying: ‘we have an appointment with the elongated prisons of Curitiba’. It felt like a mantra. You will remember. And then it became true
In this Monday’s interview, Gilmar recalled his votes against the operation. In 2015, however, the minister argued that the investigation ruined the PT’s “perfect plan” to “stay in power forever”. He ended up becoming a critic of Lava Jato later — today he calls it “the biggest judicial scandal in the world”.
Income Tax and agenda
Any income that a minister earns, which is normally a lecture, is certainly declared in Income Tax. Every year, everyone makes declarations of patrimonial evolution. This is mandatory. This is in the law
When asked about the implementation of transparency measures in the STF, the dean of the court stated, as an argument, that ministers are already required to declare their income to the Federal Revenue Service. The information, however, is not public.
Wow, look, everyone who went to the Lisbon Forum met me there. And surely that wasn’t where I would hide
Regarding the public disclosure of his agenda and sponsorship of events and trips by ministers, Gilmar said nothing. In 2026, the Lisbon Forum, organized by the minister and nicknamed “”, took place earlier this month. The dean did not disclose his commitments during the period.
Manifestation about processes
We had five or six approvals of measures, now recently in the National Congress, of minimum wages, of making states and municipalities responsible for payment, in the Chamber, in the Senate, which contradict the peaceful jurisprudence of the Federal Supreme Court
Gilmar was questioned by demonstrations on social media about votes in Congress on topics that could reach the STF. Furthermore, in the interview itself, he had already criticized Mendonça’s handling of the Master case.
The Organic Law of the Judiciary establishes that the judge is prohibited from “expressing, through any means of communication, an opinion on proceedings pending trial”. According to legislation, considerations must be made in the records or in technical works.
“There in the German code [de conduta] It was said that the judge cannot pronounce on issues that could eventually be [ter que] also speak out in court. We also have this in our Loman”, said Gilmar.
He later explained: “But I think that, in situations as such, we had five or six approvals of measures in the National Congress for a minimum salary, for making states and municipalities responsible for payment, already in the Chamber, already in the Senate, which contradict the peaceful jurisprudence of the Supreme Court.”
“It seems to me that I simply fulfilled the role of a constitutional judge, warning the legislators.”
‘Timing’ of the code of ethics
It’s not a good time, you know why? For a simple reason: it is not approved [o código de ética] in these circumstances. We can have the most interesting and elaborate ideas for the most diverse purposes. Now, if I want to approve it, I need to unite. […] Obviously this would not bring together the collegiate, it would not gather votes
Flag of the STF president’s administration, “Fachin’s code of ethics”, as Gilmar called it, was proposed at the wrong time. According to him, the context of the revelations that the ministers had connections with banker Daniel Vorcaro would make approval difficult.
The proposal for rules of conduct for members of the Supreme Court had been defended by Fachin before the disclosure of Viviane Barci de Moraes’ contract with the Master, last December, and the Dias Toffoli family’s transactions with the Master’s network, in January.
The minister was appointed as rapporteur of the proposal later, in February this year.
