Jurisprudence for Lula: stay in prison or stay in prison

By Paulo Moreira Leite, from Journalists for Democracy - By denying Lula permission to attend the wake and funeral of his friend Sigmaringa Seixas, the duty judge Vicente de Paula Ataíde confirmed that a strange jurisprudence is forming around the former president's freedom.

When a sentence mandates Lula's continued imprisonment, it must be obeyed without debate or further questioning. When the decision orders his release, perhaps for a few days, or even a few hours, a way is found to prevent it from being carried out, even if it originates from higher levels of the judiciary.  

Although lawyer Manoel Caetano Ferreira Filho suggested that Lula's release from the Curitiba prison could be authorized due to the "notorious friendship between the applicant and the deceased," the judge on duty adhered to the letter of the law to justify his continued detention. He cited article 120 of the Penal Execution Law, which only authorizes the release of a convict in a closed regime in case of "death or serious illness of the spouse, partner, ascendant, descendant, or sibling."

The debate here goes beyond the ruling of the duty judge. In the last six months, the first instance of Lava Jato received two sentences that expressly ordered Lula's release from prison. In both cases, the decision was blocked before it could be carried out.

(Learn about and support the project) Journalists for Democracy)

In July, an order signed by Rogério Favretto, a judge of the TRF4 (Regional Federal Court of the 4th Region), was neutralized in the Federal Police's detention center until it was revoked by the president of the Court, Carlos Thompson Flores.

A week ago, the president of the Supreme Federal Court (STF), Dias Toffoli, intercepted a preliminary injunction from Marco Aurelio Mello, a minister of the STF, which ordered the release of those convicted in the second instance, in a decision based on article 5, item LVII of the Constitution, which provides for the final judgment in a criminal conviction.

This disparity shows that, beyond any legal debate, a differentiated political treatment for Lula persists, which is scandalous, even if it can be recognized as predictable.  

Message number 1 is that Lula should not be released. Message number 2 is that, if the Justice system decides otherwise—in a country where the in-and-out of prisons includes the multi-rapist Roger Abdelmassi—a way will be found to prevent him from having the right to spend even a minute outside of jail, let alone an hour, or a day, much less three days. It's worth asking why.

(Learn about and support the project) Journalists for Democracy)

Point number 3 is that, from the perspective of the order that is intended to be established from January 1, 2019, it is not enough to keep Lula in prison without evidence; nor to silence him by forcing him to give interviews, an absurd and unspeakable act in a country where freedom of expression is a constitutional right.  

Lula needs to become invisible, a character who doesn't speak with his own voice, doesn't gesture with his arms, and doesn't walk on his own two feet. In a country where the Constitution prohibits the death penalty, Lula needs to be removed from the world of the living.

This is the project that fuels the legal precedent against Lula.

Brutality is equivalent to the strength of his memory.

On August 22, the last presidential poll in which his name appeared among the contenders, Lula had 39% of the voting intentions. Bolsonaro, the second-placed candidate, had 19%. Victorious in the second round, he received 34% of the total votes.

Any questions?

(Learn about and support the project) Journalists for Democracy)