Minister of TSE accepts appeal from Bolsonaro and Braga Netto and reverses second conviction for September 7th
Minister Raul Araújo of the Superior Electoral Court (TSE) has accepted an appeal from former President Jair Bolsonaro and former Minister Walter Braga Netto, reversing an individual decision that had convicted both of them for abuse during the Bicentennial of Independence celebrations on September 7, 2022. Another collective decision that convicted both of them for the same actions still stands. Raul Araújo serves as the general ombudsman of the Electoral Justice and is therefore the rapporteur of electoral judicial investigation actions (aijes), a type of process that deals with irregularities in campaigns. In a decision last week, he reviewed a decision made by his predecessor in the position, Minister Benedito Gonçalves.
In October of last year, the full TSE condemned Bolsonaro and Braga Netto to eight years of ineligibility for abuse of political and economic power on September 7. Three actions filed by the PDT and the then candidate for the Union Brasil Presidency, Senator Soraya Thronicke (Podemos-MS), were jointly judged. A week later, in an individual decision, Benedito once again convicted both of them for the same actions, but in another process regarding the episode, which is being processed separately and was filed by the coalition of President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.
This fourth action targets, in addition to Bolsonaro and Braga Netto, 15 other individuals, including the then Vice President and now Senator Hamilton Mourão (Republicanos-RS), businessman Luciano Hang, and pastor Silas Malafaia. However, Gonçalves anticipated the conviction only of the members of the ticket, and the case continues to proceed for the other individuals under investigation. Now, Raul Araújo stated that the solution adopted by Gonçalves to conduct an early trial was not “correct.” The minister decided to partially dismiss the action in relation to the already judged episodes and to maintain it only regarding new facts.
“There would be no practical result to be obtained by duplicating processes on the same factual situation and with the same legal consequences,” justified Araújo.
