In Brazil, the Supreme Federal Court (STF) has increasingly become a source of concern for the protection of fundamental rights, particularly freedom of expression and legal certainty. The Court’s actions, particularly under the leadership of some of its ministers, have raised alarm over the erosion of constitutional guarantees and the growing insecurity in the legal system. Many of these actions not only jeopardize individual freedoms but also amplify the perception of a judicial system that is prone to political bias and arbitrary decision-making.
One recent example of the STF’s overreach is the case involving Minister Alexandre de Moraes, who ordered the removal of the social media platform X (formerly Twitter) from the internet for brazillians. This extraordinary decision came after X allegedly failed to provide the data of a user, despite the absence of any clear legal justification for such an action. The court’s intervention in this case raises serious concerns about the limits of judicial power and the dangers of a government entity arbitrarily restricting access to information. It exemplifies how the STF, with its unchecked power, can undermine the principles of free speech and transparency.
Another instance of the STF’s excesses is to be witnessed during the trial of former president Jair Bolsonaro in the next few days. In the aftermath of the January 8th, 2023 attacks on Brazil’s democratic institutions, Ministers Alexandre de Moraes and Flávio Dino were not only involved in the investigation but also will actively participate in the subsequent judicial proceedings. These ministers, who are themselves alleged victims of the attacks, are taking part in the decision to judge Bolsonaro’s case, thus raising serious doubts about the impartiality of the court. By involving themselves in both the investigation and the judgment, they create a dangerous conflict of interest that undermined the fairness of the entire process. The very idea that these ministers, with personal stakes in the case, were allowed to judge it reveals the extent to which the STF’s actions jeopardize legal certainty.
Moreover, the Brazilian judiciary’s excessive spending has further fueled public discontent. The high salaries, lavish parties, and generous bonuses enjoyed by some of the Court’s members have contributed to an image of a bloated, self-serving institution disconnected from the realities faced by the general population. At a time when millions of Brazilians struggle with poverty, the judiciary’s excessive expenditures on luxury and perks paint a picture of mismanagement of public funds. This opulence stands in sharp contrast to the struggles of ordinary citizens, deepening the sense of inequality and distrust in the system.
Finally, it is important to note that any attempt to challenge or criticize the actions of the STF, as I’m doing right now, is met with accusations of attacking democracy. The narrative that any opposition to the Court’s decisions is tantamount to undermining Brazil’s democratic institutions has created a climate where dissent is suppressed. This environment bears an unsettling resemblance to a dictatorship, where the judiciary positions itself as an untouchable authority. Such a stance suppress open debate and prevents any meaningful discussion on the reform or accountability of the judiciary.
In conclusion, the STF’s actions have created a precarious situation for Brazil, where the rule of law and freedom of expression are increasingly under threat. The Court’s overreach, combined with the growing politicization of its decisions and the misuse of public funds, has led to a state of legal insecurity and public disillusionment. The Brazilian people deserve a judiciary that is impartial, transparent, and accountable, rather than one that acts as a power unto itself.