When interrupting his vacation to try to put a brake on the torrent of criticism of , in January, the minister warned that , under penalty of being contained by force of external control.
We are almost in March, with the country about to resume a rhythm that is anything but normal this year. Firstly, because 2026 started before the usual date: when it arrived, it caught fire on the political scene. Secondly, because it is an election year with a very early campaign.
Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, because it came out of the report on the case of the liquidated bank, but the case did not come out of the minister. And here we come to the point raised by Fachin in his warning regarding external pressure on the Supreme Court.
It is no longer a prediction, but a reality. Toffoli did not stop being rapporteur by his own will or by a firm decision by the panel, which did not see any suspicion on his colleague to act in a future trial. It was supported by revelations about the minister’s links with the bank’s business.
Regardless of what ministers want or don’t want, society is under scrutiny. As with any other institution under the Rule of Law. What varies is the reasonableness of the reactions, depending on the nature of the actions that support the criticism. At this point comes what is permitted, or not, by law.
Current legislation provides for the impeachment of supreme judges, upon requests examined in processes in . There are many of them in the House so far without a chance to prosper. The dean’s attempt to change the rules to practically eliminate such a hypothesis shows that the court is aware of what it did in past summers and still does in protecting the inappropriate conduct of one of its own.
It probably won’t be this time yet, but the institution of impeachment in the STF runs the risk of ceasing to be the taboo it once was during the Presidency of the Republic.
LINK PRESENT: Did you like this text? Subscribers can access seven free accesses from any link per day. Just click the blue F below.
