Master, ‘hanging stones’ and limits of the Judiciary: questions for Messiah in the Senate

Scheduled for Wednesday, the hearing of Jorge Messias, nominated to the Federal Supreme Court (STF), should be marked by an offensive by senators to test the independence of the Union’s attorney general in relation to the government of Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. The parliamentarians’ objective is to clarify how Messias intends to act on issues that currently strain the relationship between the Judiciary and Congress, such as the scope of the Court’s decisions, investigations into amendments and the Master case.

Behind the scenes, interlocutors report that, in recent days, Messias has intensified direct contacts with senators and adjusted his speech on sensitive topics, with an emphasis on predictability and respect for the powers of the Powers, a line that should also appear in the hearing.

‘Bessias’ and political trajectory

One of the points that must be rescued is the quote from Messias in a conversation between Lula and the then president Dilma Rousseff, intercepted by the Federal Police in 2016. In the dialogue, Dilma mentions sending a document through “Bessias”, a nickname that came to accompany the current head of the AGU.

The episode should be used by senators to support the assessment that the nominee built his career more linked to the political field than the legal field.

Proximity to Lula and work at AGU

The direct relationship with Lula must be a central axis. As attorney general of the Union, Messias occupies a strategic position in the legal defense of the Executive, which has placed him at the center of recent disputes between the government, Congress and the STF.

During the hearing, senators must question him about how he intends to act in processes involving the government that nominated him and demand a clearer position on his recent performance in conflicts between the Powers.

One of the sources of wear and tear was his participation in the transparency agenda of parliamentary amendments. Under his management, the AGU created a working group to deal with irregularities in the execution of these resources, in compliance with Supreme Court decisions. This movement was met with resistance in the Senate, where some parliamentarians saw the initiative as aligned with an agenda of greater control over the Legislature.

Another episode that should be remembered is his performance after Minister Gilmar Mendes’ decision on rules for requests for impeachment of members of the Court. At the time, Messias chose to request a review of the injunction, in a gesture interpreted by senators as an attempt to accommodate the conflict with Congress without facing the Supreme Court.

This set of episodes should support direct questions about how the nominee intends to position himself in institutional disputes and to what extent he will maintain his distance from the Executive in sensitive cases.

Limits of the Judiciary and ‘hanging stones’

The debate on the limits of the STF’s actions should occupy a central space in the session. Senators intend to explore how the nominee sees the Court’s role in issues that affect Congress.

Throughout his journey, as reported by GLOBO, Messias considered that he would act against the Court’s interventionism, with the aim of pacifying the relationship between the powers.

Questions should also arise about benefits and compensation funds from the Judiciary, the so-called “hanging fruit”, amid pressure for greater spending control and transparency. Recently, Dino issued a decision that suspended compensation funds without legal provision.

Master Bank Case

The advancement of investigations involving Banco Master should act as another axis of pressure. The case reached the Federal Supreme Court and has already provoked developments within the Court.

Minister Dias Toffoli, who even reported measures related to the case, stepped aside after information became public about his closeness to banker Daniel Vorcaro, including trips and meetings outside the official agenda. The minister denies irregularities.

Alexandre de Moraes, on the other hand, became the target of questions after contracts signed between Banco Master and his wife’s law firm came to light, in addition to mentions of his name in messages seized during the investigation. There is no formal accusation against the minister, who also denies any wrongdoing.

Behind the scenes, the guidance for Jorge Messias is to treat the issue with caution. For cases like Master, the response must emphasize that the analysis must follow procedural criteria, with a guarantee of broad defense.

Senators should use the episode to test how the nominee intends to position himself in the face of investigations that affect the Judiciary itself and authorities with privileged jurisdiction.

Abortion

Among the issues discussed behind closed doors, abortion should appear in the hearing. An evangelical, Jorge Messias has told interlocutors that he is in favor of the hypotheses already provided for by law and defends that possible expansions be dealt with by the Legislature, not by the Judiciary.

The position is in line with recent demonstrations that he led at the Federal Attorney General’s Office on the topic. In an opinion, he argued that a resolution by the Federal Council of Medicine made legal abortion in cases of rape difficult, in practice, and that it was not up to the council to impose a time limit on a procedure that is a women’s right. The text also maintained that the measure sought, indirectly, to change the legislation on abortion — which, according to the AGU, is the responsibility of the National Congress.

For senators, the hearing should take the form of an autonomy test, in which Messias will be charged not only for legal positions, but for his ability to separate himself from his career in the Executive.

The expectation is for a long session, similar to that of the last nominee, minister Flávio Dino, which lasted more than ten hours. The hearing takes place this Wednesday morning and, if approved by the CCJ, the name will go to a vote in the Senate plenary on the same day.