Transparency International defends Dallagnol and sees “systemic danger” after impeachment

The NGO Transparency International in Brazil sees that the impeachment of federal deputy Deltan Dallagnol (Podemos-PR) by the Superior Electoral Court (TSE) represents a “systemic danger” and further affects society’s confidence in the Brazilian electoral process. The finding was published in a long post on social networks this Wednesday night (17) (see in full).

According to Transparency International, Dallagnol’s impeachment was declared in an atypical way in a “casuistic” understanding of the Clean Record Law by expanding the hypothesis of ineligibility, “dismissing the literal and objective requirement of the law on the existence of administrative disciplinary procedure (PAD) ”.

This, he says, threatens fundamental political rights protected by the Constitution and international treaties, and sets a precedent for future decisions by electoral judges. The NGO points out that the TSE reversed decisions of lower courts, such as that of the Regional Electoral Court of Paraná (TRE-PR) that approved the registration of Dallagnol in 2022, a decision endorsed by the Public Ministry.

“In these terms, the revocation of the mandate of a member of the National Congress has an additional impact on society’s confidence in the electoral process. In a context of systemic impunity for political corruption, this distrust extends towards Justice – already seriously attacked”, says Transparency International.

The NGO also states that the impeachment of a public agent who acted in cases of macro-corruption involving individuals of the highest power “extends legal uncertainty and the so-called ‘chilling effect’ to law enforcement agents acting against powerful interests”.

Finally, Transparency International says that it is essential for Brazil to discuss and implement mechanisms to improve the separation between law enforcement activities, with the imposition of quarantines for candidacies of prosecutors, judges and military and political party representation.

“But it is essential that it does so through the progress of legal and institutional frameworks and, above all, respecting and promoting rights”, he adds.

What led to Dallagnol’s impeachment

Dallagnol’s mandate as federal deputy was unanimously revoked by TSE ministers in a vote that lasted less than 1 minute without debate, conducted by Minister Alexandre de Moraes.

The judges accepted an appeal filed by the Brazilian Federation of Hope (PT, PCdoB and PV) against the candidacy of the former prosecutor coordinating the Lava Jato task force. The parties allege that Dallagnol would have asked for dismissal from the Public Prosecutor’s Office during a pending Administrative Disciplinary Process (PAD), which, according to the Clean Record Law, would make the former Lava Jato prosecutor ineligible.

The Regional Electoral Court of Paraná (TRE-PR), however, recognized that he did not have any pending PAD at the time of his dismissal and granted his candidacy.

The parties then filed an appeal, contesting the decision of the TRE-PR, citing that at the time he left the MP, Deltan was the target of disciplinary complaints and requests for action. In the understanding of the Electoral Attorney General, however, these procedures would be preliminary to the establishment of the PAD and are not provided for in the ineligibility rule.

Deltan Dallagnol was the most voted federal deputy in Paraná in the 2022 elections, with almost 345 thousand votes. The parliamentarian said that he has a “feeling of indignation with the unprecedented revenge that is taking place in Brazil against law enforcement agents who dared to fight corruption”.

Still according to the parliamentarian, the impeachment was determined by an “imaginary ineligibility”, and that the Electoral Court reversed the presumption of innocence. Dallagnol’s advisory told Gazeta do Povo that the defense will appeal the decision.

Among the paths are the TSE itself, which would be for a more detailed analysis of the decision, and the Federal Supreme Court (STF), to contest the decision of the Electoral Court.