Entities and lawyers consulted by the Sheet state that it is worrying, if it occurred due to public criticism, the PF () subpoena issued to Kleber Cabral, president of Unafisco (National Association of Tax Auditors of Brazil), to give testimony.
Other reasons still unknown, however, could justify the measure, such as the union member being a witness or a source of relevant evidence in the ongoing investigation.
Cabral was summoned this Friday (20), after he began to publicly criticize the investigation that generated precautionary measures for servers suspected of leaks involving data from ministers of the (Supreme Federal Court) and family members. The order for the subpoena came from Minister Alexandre de Moraes.
Unafisco stated, after he was interviewed by the police, that Cabral spoke as an investigator and only because of the consequences.
On Wednesday (18), the union leader told GloboNews that it is “less risky to inspect members of the PCC than high-ranking authorities of the Republic.” It has also questioned the lack of proportionality of the actions.
Unafisco represents one of the four servers suspected of involvement in the data leak, Ricardo Mansano de Moraes. He is being investigated for a possible link with Ricardo Pereira Feitosa, who was head of intelligence at the Federal Revenue at the beginning of the Bolsonaro government. , the PF is also investigating whether there is a connection between Cabral and Feitosa.
In addition to Ricardo Mansano, servers Luiz Antônio Martins Nunes, Luciano Pery Santos Nascimento and Ruth Machado dos Santos are suspected of leaking information.
They were targeted on Tuesday (17) and suffered home search and seizure and breach of confidentiality, in addition to immediate removal from public service and home confinement at night.
The operation took place after sending calls to court magistrates and relatives.
According to experts interviewed by Sheetthe scenario of the subpoena is worrying, if it is related to Kleber Cabral’s public criticism. Other reasons not yet disclosed, however, could justify the measure, such as clarification on any specific case in which auditors, acting legally, were prevented from working in work involving high-ranking authorities.
For Charlene Nagae, a lawyer specializing in freedom of expression and executive director of the Tornavoz institute, there is a lack of precise information to understand what led to the union leader’s subpoena. Having made the reservation, she says that the scenario is worrying if the subpoena is in fact linked to Cabral’s public demonstrations.
“If the call for testimony has to do with the criticisms expressed by the association and the president, we view it with concern, because, in fact, the right to criticism is an important constitutional right, an essential guarantee for democracy.”
Raquel da Cruz Lima, program coordinator at Artigo 19, an NGO specialized in topics related to freedom of expression, states that the lack of clarity about the reason for the subpoena creates insecurity.
She says that the secrecy present in the case has been a tool repeatedly used by the Justice system in Brazil, although it should be exceptional and well-founded. The result, he says, is a scenario in which there is “the appearance that criticism can be seen in a negative light and trigger some kind of consequence or reprisal”.
“There is still a lot of insecurity [sobre o que motivou a intimação]but the proximity of the events [das críticas e da convocação para o depoimento]and the fact that we are in a context in which precautionary measures have frequently been used in a context of secrecy, means that there is much more distrust of the regularity of these measures.”
For Transparency International Brazil, Cabral was the target of “intimidation, by a constitutional judge, for defending civil servants (guilty or not) victims of obvious abuse of authority”.
According to Guilherme France, the organization’s research and advocacy manager, the decision to issue a subpoena “produces effects that go far beyond the individual case, as it signals that any criticism, even that exercised within the limits of freedom of expression, may be the target of reprisals from Brazil’s highest court.”
He says the case will have the effect of stifling public debate around the actions of the Judiciary and will ultimately weaken democracy.
According to Álvaro Jorge, law professor at FGV Rio, the lack of transparency makes it difficult to analyze the scenario, but the subpoena would be inappropriate if it derived only from public criticism. “No one should be subpoenaed in Brazil because of criticism.”
A different situation, however, would be for the public authority to ask for clarification on whether the trade unionist has information regarding a specific case in which auditors, working within the law, were harmed due to dealing with issues linked to authorities.
For Gustavo Badaró, professor of criminal procedure at , the subpoena for criticism would be worrying because it could create a scenario of pressure on the public servant. “It seems like it’s a form of pressure for the criticism he made in his position as class leader.”
Badaró states that, so far, Cabral does not appear to be a source of evidence for data leak crimes. At the same time, his statements, although strong, appear to be within the limits of freedom of expression, says the lawyer. “There appears to be no reason for him to be subpoenaed. There is nothing to indicate that he is a witness, a source of evidence relevant to the investigation.”
