Ministers see Fachin’s timid reaction to the Crime CPI and defend internal coordination

The reaction of the president of the Federal Supreme Court (STF), Edson Fachin, to the CPI on Organized Crime report that called for the indictment of ministers Alexandre de Moraes, Dias Toffoli and Gilmar Mendes was seen as “timid” and deepened the climate of dissatisfaction in a wing of the Court and accentuated differences among its members regarding the defense being made by the court.

Ministers interviewed by GLOBO assess that the note released by Fachin, after the presidents of the First and Second Panels, Flávio Dino and Gilmar Mendes, had already spoken out, added another layer to the wave of dissatisfaction with the way the president of the STF positions himself in the face of episodes that expose his members. The text signed by the president of the Court was released only after the rejection of the opinion, defeated by six votes to four in the CPI.

Gilmar led the reaction within the court to the CPI report, with strong statements, accompanied by positions from ministers Dias Toffoli and Flávio Dino, who also criticized the content of the document and offered solidarity to the aforementioned colleagues.

Privately, ministers state that, given this scenario, it will be necessary for Fachin to “clear the game” within the court itself to contain wear and tear and seek to rebuild the presidency’s bridges with the magistrates. For this group, the movement involves reducing public statements and avoiding initiatives that could increase internal noise or reinforce the perception of crisis.

In this context, there are those who argue that sensitive issues taken up by the current administration, such as the discussion on a Code of Conduct for ministers, be temporarily left in the background.

Ministers also say that the code could weaken the STF and expand the crisis, and the priority of the moment must be internal unity to face actions that, in the magistrates’ view, attempt to delegitimize the Court. Ministers recall joint action in defense of democracy.

The assessment is that insisting on this debate at this time could intensify even more internal divisions, especially given the interpretation that the topic has been associated, albeit indirectly, with recent episodes involving members of the Court.

The reading of one wing of the Court is that, by responding to the CPI episode only when the report was rejected, Fachin left the Supreme Court as a whole exposed. It was the first time that a parliamentary committee asked for the indictment of Court ministers. Therefore, the note ended up reigniting discomforts that had been accumulating in recent weeks around the public exposure of the STF and its members.

Accumulated nuisance

The discomfort is not restricted to Fachin’s note. As O GLOBO showed, it adds to an already existing dissatisfaction in part of the court with recent statements by both the president of the STF and minister Cármen Lúcia, who had been defending greater transparency and the need for clearer rules of conduct.

For this group of ministers, although the demonstrations aim to respond to external criticism, the practical effect has been to expand the Court’s exposure at a time of increasing political pressure.

This wing understands that publicly acknowledging internal tensions or discussing conduct control mechanisms can end up fueling narratives of institutional fragility and increasing collective wear and tear.

Furthermore, there is discomfort with the fact that generic messages about ethics and behavior can be interpreted as directed to specific cases, which, in the view of these judges, contributes to an environment of internal distrust.