Ex-president’s bid for Cabinet blocked
Rousseff’s appointment of successor denied by court, as Brazil protests spill over
RIO DE JANEIRO— Uncertainty clouded Brazil’s already turbulent political scene Thursday as a judge blocked the appointment of former president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva as chief of staff to his successor just moments after his tumultuous swearing-in ceremony.
Critics of current President Dilma Rousseff accuse her of a transparent manoeuvre aimed at helping the once wildly popular Lula slalom legal woes that saw him taken in for questioning in a sprawling corruption probe less than two weeks ago. Cabinet members cannot be investigated, charged or imprisoned unless authorized by the Supreme Court.
Rousseff has insisted the cabinet appointment has nothing to do with the former president’s legal problems, saying Lula would help put the country back on track economically and spearhead the fight against attempts to oust her over allegations of fiscal mismanagement. The impeachment process moved a step closer Thursday as the lower house established a special commission on the matter.
As the spectacle continued to play out, the simmering anger that bought an estimated three million people onto the streets in nationwide anti-government demonstrations over the weekend again spilled over, with protests flaring in Brasilia and Sao Paulo, where demonstrators brandished inflatable dolls of Lula in black-and-white prison stripes. A pro-Lula rally was slated for Friday, but it was not clear whether the former leader would attend.
Rousseff went on the offensive at Thursday’s swearing-in ceremony, calling those pressing for her removal “putschists” and accusing Sergio Moro, the judge who is leading the corruption probe into the state-run oil company Petrobras, of violating the constitution and acting in a partisan manner.
“Shaking Brazilian society on the base of untruths, shady manoeuvres, and much-criticized practices violates constitutional guarantees and creates very serious precedents,” Rousseff said. “Coups begin that way.”
The injunction suspending Lula’s nomination, brought by a federal judge in Brasilia, was widely expected as such tactics are often used to delay or interrupt political appointments and decisions. But the practical effects remain subject to debate, with some attorneys insisting Lula is the chief of staff — and enjoys the special legal standing afforded by the role — while others contended the injunction must first be ruled on by a higher court.
Gustavo Binenbojm, a law profes- sor at Rio de Janeiro’s state university, insisted the injunction is “valid until it’s overruled,” meaning that Silva is not yet a cabinet minister.
On the other hand, Brasilia-based attorney Joaquim Pedro Rodrigues said the injunction stipulates that if the swearing-in already took place, the suspension would not take effect until a final decision is reached. While Lula won’t be able to exercise official functions until the matter is resolved, he will enjoy the cabinet ministers’ special legal standing until then, Rodrigues said.
Solicitor general Jose Eduardo Cardozo, a close ally of Rousseff’s, said “political motivations” were behind the injunction, which he called “absolutely inappropriate.”
“The situation is absurd,” Cardozo said at a news conference. But Rousseff and Lula have repeatedly denied any wrongdoing, but Rousseff has seen her popularity nosedive as the country of 200 million has spiralled into crisis after crisis.
The Petrobras corruption investigation has stained Brazil’s political and business elite. The country is ground zero for the Zika virus, which scientists believe can lead to birth defects. The economy is mired in the worst recession since the 1930s, with rising inflation and daily announcements of layoffs adding to people’s fears and desperation. And in the middle of it all, Brazil is set to host the Summer Olympics in Rio de Janeiro in August.
Moro compared the situation to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the Watergate scandal that toppled president Richard Nixon. “Not even the highest authority of the republic has absolute privilege of protection of their communications,” Moro wrote, adding that the 1974 decision in the U.S. vs. Nixon case was “an example to be followed.”