Noblat condemns coup in Paraguay.

247- Journalist and columnist for the newspaper O Globo, Ricardo Noblat, published a text on his blog today condemning the lightning-fast impeachment process that ousted Fernando Lugo.

Read the full text

Legal scam, by Ricardo Noblat

Was the removal of Fernando Lugo from the presidency of Paraguay a coup or not?

The Supreme Court there said it wasn't. That Congress respected the established procedure for impeaching a president. (Summary procedure, apparently).

Furthermore, Lugo himself agreed to the procedure, which is true. And finally, he was succeeded by the vice-president, as required by law.

So why do some Latin American countries and international organizations insist on considering what happened in Paraguay suspicious?

Well, because it was suspicious. Beyond suspicious. Falsely legal.

The Paraguayans watched in stunned silence as Lugo was replaced.

In 2009, Honduras invented the "legal coup" with the overthrow of President Manuel Zelaya, a conservative seduced by Hugo Chávez, the president of Venezuela.

The Honduran courts have endorsed the coup orchestrated by Congress. The Constitution has been respected, the courts have declared.

Nonsense!

What made the coup in Honduras blatantly illegal was Zelaya's arrest by the Army and his expulsion from the country. Such violence was not provided for in the Constitution.

Paraguayan politicians were less rude than their Honduran counterparts. Lugo continues to live in Asunción and say whatever he wants. Or whatever his timidity allows him to say.

What made the coup in Paraguay blatantly illegal was that Lugo's removal from office was achieved through the scandalous curtailment of his right to defense.

Those who say the coup wasn't a coup mention Article 225 of the Paraguayan Constitution. It states that Congress can remove the president from office by issuing a "political judgment."

But Article 17, which deals with Procedural Rights, states in item 7: the accused must have "the means and time necessary to prepare his defense freely".

Did you take note? The accused must have "the necessary means and time to prepare their defense freely."

An editorial in Folha de São Paulo concluded last week: "Despite curtailing the right to defense, Lugo's impeachment was constitutional."

Doesn't that sound like a joke from Folha? It must be a joke.

How can an impeachment process that restricts the right to a defense be in accordance with the Constitution?

It only takes a simple citizen having their right to defense limited for any punishment imposed on them to be declared null and void. The right to defense only doesn't exist in countries that disregard democracy, or where it functions poorly.

The process that resulted in Lugo's overthrow lasted less than two days. To be exact: about 36 hours.

The Chamber of Deputies and the Senate voted hastily. And Lugo had only two and a half hours, no more than that, to defend himself.

A case opened and closed in 36 hours, my friends! And two and a half hours for Lugo to prove his innocence!

Seriously: would you say that Lugo had "the necessary means and time to prepare his defense freely"?

His accusers spent months smoothing over their differences, negotiating the future sharing of power, and carefully crafting what they would say to justify the downfall of a legitimately elected president.

Months, no, years.

For more than two years, the United States government has been warned by its embassy that a maneuver to depose Lugo is underway.

The accusations leveled against Lugo were flimsy, inconsistent, and deceitful. Perhaps most of them wouldn't withstand an independent investigation.

But how can one suggest an independent investigation overnight, with only two and a half hours of explanation for an audience determined to condemn the defendant?

Lugo was accused of authorizing a political rally of young people at the headquarters of the Armed Forces Engineering Command in 2009. The state paid the expenses.

He was also accused of instigating and facilitating recent land invasions in the Ñacunday region. Furthermore, according to his detractors, he was responsible for the clash between landless peasants and police that resulted in the deaths of 17 of them in Curuguaty.

The final accusation included in the impeachment request against Lugo was that he had been "absolutely incapable of developing policies and programs aimed at reducing growing citizen insecurity."

Regarding the evidence that supported the accusations...

What evidence? What is the point of evidence?

The memorandum proposing Lugo's resignation states: "All the causes mentioned above are of public knowledge, which is why they do not need to be proven, according to our current legal system."

It is well known that the Earth is round. But how long did it take for this truth to be accepted? Last year, a European satellite confirmed that the Earth is not entirely round. It is somewhat flattened at the poles.

Was Lugo a weak, mediocre, and disorganized president?

It was. One piece of evidence: the impeachment vote tally. In the Chamber of Deputies: 73 votes against 1. In the Senate: 39 to 4. Lugo's own party voted against him!

Did Lugo make mistakes? Yes, sir. Just like all presidents do. They are not infallible – except for Lula, of course.

The mistakes made by Lugo did not push Paraguay to the brink of the abyss. They did not threaten the regime that operates there. Nor did they provoke social upheaval.

In 10 months there will be elections in Paraguay. Re-election for president is prohibited.

Lugo ended up being ousted from power not as the incompetent president he may have been. He left as a victim of a contradiction in terms called a "legal coup".