Lava Jato ended democracy, says jurist Afrânio Jardim.

Lia Bianchini, Brazil of Fact Last week, the president of the Supreme Federal Court (STF), Dias Toffoli, overturned the injunction issued by another minister of the Court, Marco Aurélio Mello. Toffoli's measure prevented prisoners convicted in the second instance, including former president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, from remaining free until all judicial appeals were exhausted.

Because of this, the day after Tofolli's decision, the jurist Afrânio Silva Jardim, considered one of the greatest proceduralists in Brazil, announced that he was retiring from legal practice. "My disappointment and disgust are immense. How can one teach law with a Supreme Federal Court like this??? I am withdrawing from this false and hypocritical 'world'," he stated on his Facebook account.

Afrânio taught criminal procedural law for almost 39 years and worked for 31 years in the Public Prosecutor's Office of the State of Rio de Janeiro. The associate professor at the State University of Rio de Janeiro (Uerj) spoke with Brasil de Fato a week after his decision. In the interview, the jurist demonstrates his total disappointment and disbelief in the Brazilian Judiciary and states that the method used by Operation Lava Jato to combat corruption has ended the Democratic Rule of Law. "The Judiciary today has a side. Ideologically, it has taken a side," he believes.

Check out the full interview:

Brasil de Fato - At what point did you decide to leave the legal profession?

Afrânio Silva Jardim - I was planning to retire, especially since I'm 68 years old, at the end of 2020. But I decided to bring it forward to now. The last straw was the decisions of the Supreme Federal Court (STF). In my understanding, the STF is judging very poorly. It is allowing itself to be carried away by an absurd judicial activism, with a punitive vision incompatible with what was expected of the ministers [of the Supreme Court].

I am disappointed and disillusioned with the importation of aspects of American law into Brazilian law. They gave the plea bargain agreement a scope that was not foreseen by law, allowing what is negotiated to prevail over what is legislated, even in criminal proceedings. And Lava Jato did this absurdly, with sentencing regimes not foreseen in the Penal Execution Law. It became a negotiated criminal process, violating our traditional system. It became a monster. And the key word in a democratic state is: control. Internal control and external control. These things create a certain disillusionment.

This is a subversion of our system, something unthinkable. The limits of this have been lost. And I also found that perhaps two-thirds of the Public Prosecutor's Office and two-thirds of the judiciary are right-leaning punitivists, and that's disappointing too. I'll stay in other trenches, always participating. But teaching, grading exams, and talking in class about things that don't happen in practice... It's even deceiving the student.

In an article you wrote in February of this year, you stated that the Public Prosecutor's Office, the Federal Police, and the Judiciary have joined forces to combat corruption. What are the consequences of this?

To exaggerate a bit, I could say that the consequence is the end of the Democratic Rule of Law. Because the Judiciary was not created to combat anything. It was created to, distanced from the facts, preserve its impartiality and judge according to the Law. To resolve conflicts impartially, from a distance. Now, when the Judiciary allies itself with the Police and the Public Prosecutor's Office, you have no one to turn to. The Judiciary today has a side. Ideologically, it has taken a side. This is the case of President Lula. To whom does he turn? The path is mined.

Would you say there is no legal recourse for the case of former President Lula?

It has to happen. Lula will only be released with a court order. Nobody is thinking of storming the Federal Police, rescuing President Lula, that makes no sense. But what's happening there is an unusual situation. I think [the president of the Supreme Court, Dias] Toffoli didn't have the authority to do that. He's not a reviewer of the Supreme Court justices' individual decisions. He overstepped his bounds, and people know it.

We are politically keeping Lula imprisoned due to pressure, I don't know if from the traditional media, the business class, the Armed Forces, or all of them together. The fact is that the situation is absurd. Law no longer interests me. There has to be law, since a society without rules doesn't exist, but I'm no longer interested in reproducing it, teaching it, because we end up legitimizing the absolutely unjust order that is in place.

Would you say that what we are experiencing today is a scenario that has been unfolding since the so-called Mensalão scandal?

I think a lot of it started with those marches in 2013. With Lava Jato closing ranks with Rede Globo and that systematic campaign against corruption, as if they discovered it overnight, as if it wasn't a historical, endemic thing, very characteristic of capitalist societies, of greed, of profit. Because the corruptors and businessmen are all at home, in their mansions, with ankle monitors, that's the truth.

Operation Lava Jato could have fought corruption, within the law, without fanfare. But the scheme that [former Lava Jato judge Sérgio] Moro orchestrated with TV Globo and the corporate media in general was a spectacle. This created antagonism towards corruption in the protests, as if corruption were a left-wing thing. It existed, but it's widespread, it's in all parties. It starts with campaign sponsorship by companies. That's where it all began, in terms of corruption. The population became angry, manipulated by the punitive vision.

Is the forecast for 2019 that authoritarianism will worsen?

I have no doubt. Whether in terms of regulations, legislation, or in its application by judges and prosecutors linked to the right wing, which is that simplistic, punitive view. I always say that if toughening criminal law solved the problem of violence, it would be easy. It's a naive view. Naive or malicious, I don't know.

How do you assess that this type of questioning, in relation to judicial authoritarianism, can help change Brazilian legal practices?

The average person lacks knowledge regarding this type of accusation and sometimes even rejects it. The mainstream media has done a very competent job. If you were to conduct a survey today, you would find that people are in favor of the normative system, in favor of the death penalty, and even lynching. The right wing has resurrected communism. Those who talk most about communism today are on the right. That's the truth. The Brazilian people are not educated.

You walk down the street, ask people, and they know nothing about what's going on. Easy prey for this corporate media. That's why they voted for him [Jair Bolsonaro], the truculent captain. We have a tendency to think that everyone thinks like us, has the same information, has the same interests in politics, in social issues. People don't care at all. People in Brazil are ignorant in the purest sense of the word; they are unaware of things.

You said you're going to look for new trenches. Do you have any idea which ones yet?

I have an idea to get closer to social movements. Theoretically, through writing, I can address social issues less and more, specifically the sympathetic MST [Landless Workers' Movement].

Listen to the article:

0:00

via SoundCloud

29:59

Download

Lawyer Afrânio Jardim announces he is abandoning the legal profession following Dias Toffoli's decision / Leandro Taques