Recently, Brazil has witnessed a judicial episode that raises serious questions about the functioning of its justice system. The preventive arrest of former president Jair Bolsonaro, ordered by Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, has sparked intense debate over legality, human rights, and political motivation. In this article, we critically examine the most controversial points, question the justification for the decision, and reflect on its impact on Brazilian democracy.

The context of the arrest and Alexandre de Moraes’ role

Bolsonaro’s arrest followed allegations that he tampered with his electronic ankle monitor. However, the arrest warrant had already been dated November 21, before the incident with the device occurred. This raises a key question: was the monitor violation the true reason for the arrest, or merely a pretext to justify an already-made decision? Furthermore, Moraes, sanctioned by the United States under the Magnitsky Act for human rights violations, strengthens concerns that judicial decisions might have political motivations.

Criminalizing religious and civic gatherings

Another critical issue is the interpretation of the vigil called by Flávio Bolsonaro as a threat to the enforcement of the law. Treating a peaceful religious and civic act as an attempt to obstruct justice is deeply questionable. This approach suggests a troubling trend of criminalizing peaceful demonstrations, contradicting fundamental principles of freedom of expression and religion.

Questioning the risk of escape

The claim of imminent risk of flight also appears unsustainable. The former president is elderly, physically vulnerable, and under strict surveillance, with his residence surrounded by federal police forces. To infer that a man in such conditions could escape casts serious doubt on the proportionality of the measure and the consistency of the judicial analysis.

International impact and perception

International authorities, such as Christopher Landau, former US Deputy Chief of Mission, described the arrest as “provocative and unnecessary.” According to Landau, actions like this jeopardize the reputation of the Supreme Federal Court and Brazilian democracy itself. These statements reflect external concerns about respect for human rights and judicial impartiality.

Conclusion: A warning for democracy

This case highlights a series of inconsistencies that deserve attention: the ankle monitor justification is weak, criminalizing religious vigils is alarming, and the alleged risk of flight seems exaggerated. Now more than ever, Brazilian society must closely follow judicial developments and demand transparency and impartial justice.

If you want to stay informed on nationally relevant cases and critical analyses of the political scenario, keep following our content. This is a moment for reflection for everyone who values the Rule of Law and democracy.