Brazil's Bolsonaro testifies before Supreme Court over alleged coup plan
Brazil's far-right former President Jair Bolsonaro, testifying for the first time before the nation's Supreme Court, has denied involvement in an alleged coup plot to remain in power and overturn the 2022 election result that he lost to current leftist President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva.
Bolsonaro, 70, and seven of his close allies were questioned by a panel of top judges on Tuesday as part of a trial over allegations that they devised a multi-step scheme to keep Bolsonaro in office despite his defeat to Lula.
Bolsonaro and his co-defendants risk prison sentences of up to 40 years in a trial dubbed 'historic' – the first ever for an attempted coup under a democratic government in Brazil.
'That's not the case, your honour,' Bolsonaro replied on Tuesday when asked by Judge Alexandre de Moraes – an arch political foe – about 'the truthfulness' of the accusations against him.
'There was never any talk of a coup. A coup is an abominable thing … Brazil couldn't go through an experience like that. And there was never even the possibility of a coup in my government,' Bolsonaro claimed.
The plot only failed, the charge sheet says, due to a clear lack of military backing.
Bolsonaro, a former military officer himself. who has been known to express nostalgia for the country's past military dictatorship, openly defied Brazil's judicial system during his 2019-2022 term in office.
On Monday, Bolsonaro's former right-hand man Mauro Cid – a co-defendant who has turned state's witness – told the court Bolsonaro had 'received and read' a draft decree for the declaration of a state of emergency.
He then 'edited' the document, which would have paved the way for measures to 'redo the election' and also envisaged the imprisonment of top personalities including Moraes, said Cid.
Cid also testified that he had received cash in a wine crate from Bolsonaro's former running mate and Defence Minister Walter Braga Netto that investigators say was earmarked to finance an operation by special troops to kill Lula, his Vice President Geraldo Alckmin and Moraes.
Apart from Cid, the other co-defendants are four ex-ministers and the former heads of Brazil's navy and intelligence agency.
Most who have taken the stand so far have rejected the bulk of the accusations in the charge sheet. The defendants are standing trial on five counts: attempting to stage a coup, involvement in an armed criminal organisation, attempted violent abolition of the democratic rule of law, aggravated damage and deterioration of listed heritage.
A coup conviction carries a sentence of up to 12 years. When combined with the other charges, the accused could be sentenced to up to 40 years behind bars.
Two former army commanders have claimed Bolsonaro hosted a meeting where the declaration of a state of emergency was discussed as a means of overturning Lula's election victory.
Bolsonaro has denied all the charges, saying he is the target of political persecution.
He has already been banned in a separate court ruling from running in elections until 2030 over abuse of power while in office and casting unfounded doubts on the country's electronic voting system. However, he is still hoping to run in the 2026 presidential elections.
'They have nothing to convict me; my conscience is clear,' the former leader told reporters on Monday.
Almir Garnier, who was Brazilian Navy commander under Bolsonaro, denied the former president had discussed the declaration of a state of emergency with military officials.
He also denied offering Bolsonaro any Navy troops.
The Supreme Court headquarters in Brasilia was one of the targets of a rioting mob of supporters known as 'Bolsonaristas' – who raided government buildings in January 2023 as they urged the military to oust Lula, an insurrection attempt that evoked the supporters of Bolsonaro ally United States President Donald Trump on January 6, 2021.
Bolsonaro was abroad in Florida at the time of this last-gasp effort to keep him in power after the alleged coup planning fizzled. But his opponents have accused him of fomenting the rioting.
Judges will hear from 26 other defendants at a later date. The court has already heard from dozens of witnesses in hearings that began in mid-May.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Jazeera
14 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
US Supreme Court declines to speed up decision to take up fight over tariff
The court declined to fast-track the review of the dispute over Trump having legal power to impose broad tariffs. The United States Supreme Court has declined to speed up its consideration of whether to take up a challenge to President Donald Trump's sweeping tariffs even before lower courts have ruled in the dispute. The Supreme Court denied on Friday a request by a family-owned toy company, Learning Resources, that filed the legal challenge against Trump's tariffs to expedite the review of the dispute by the nation's top judicial body. The company, which makes educational toys, won a court ruling on May 29 that Trump cannot unilaterally impose tariffs using the emergency authority he had claimed. That ruling is currently on hold, leaving the tariffs in place for now. Learning Resources asked the Supreme Court to take the rare step of immediately hearing the case to decide the legality of the tariffs, effectively leapfrogging the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Washington, where the case is pending. Two district courts have ruled that Trump's tariffs are not justified under the law he cited, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Both of those cases are on appeal. No court has yet backed the sweeping emergency tariff authority Trump has claimed.
Al Jazeera
16 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Top court revives lawsuits against Palestinian authorities from US victims
The Supreme Court has revived long-running lawsuits against Palestinian authorities from Americans killed or wounded in attacks in Israel and the occupied West Bank. The United States Supreme Court has upheld a statute passed by Congress to facilitate lawsuits against Palestinian authorities by Americans killed or injured in attacks abroad as plaintiffs pursue monetary damages for violence years ago in Israel and the occupied West Bank. The 9-0 ruling overturned a lower court's decision that the 2019 law, the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act, violated the rights of the Palestinian Authority and Palestine Liberation Organization to due process under the US Constitution. Conservative Chief Justice John Roberts, who authored the ruling, said the 2019 jurisdictional law comported with due process rights enshrined in the Constitution's Fifth Amendment. 'It is permissible for the federal government to craft a narrow jurisdictional provision that ensures, as part of a broader foreign policy agenda, that Americans injured or killed by acts of terror have an adequate forum in which to vindicate their right' to compensation under a federal law known as the Anti-terrorism Act of 1990, Roberts wrote. The US government and a group of American victims and their families had appealed the lower court's decision that struck down a provision of the law. Among the plaintiffs are families who in 2015 won a $655m judgement in a civil case alleging that the Palestinian organisations were responsible for a series of shootings and bombings around Jerusalem from 2002 to 2004. They also include relatives of Ari Fuld, a Jewish settler in the Israel-occupied West Bank who was fatally stabbed by a Palestinian in 2018. Advertisement The ruling comes even as Jewish settlements on Palestinian-owned land are considered illegal under international law. 'The plaintiffs, US families who had loved ones maimed or murdered in PLO-sponsored terror attacks, have been waiting for justice for many years,' said Kent Yalowitz, a lawyer for the plaintiffs. 'I am very hopeful that the case will soon be resolved without subjecting these families to further protracted and unnecessary litigation,' Yalowitz added. Israel's ongoing war in Gaza, and now Iran, served as a backdrop to the case. Since the war in Gaza began in October 2023, more than 55,000 people have been killed and 130,000 wounded, according to Gaza's Health Ministry. Sign up for Al Jazeera Americas Coverage Newsletter US politics, Canada's multiculturalism, South America's geopolitical rise—we bring you the stories that matter. Subscribe Your subscription failed. Please try again. Please check your email to confirm your subscription By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy protected by reCAPTCHA US courts for years have grappled over whether they have jurisdiction in cases involving the Palestinian Authority and PLO for actions taken abroad. Under the language at issue in the 2019 law, the PLO and Palestinian Authority automatically 'consent' to jurisdiction if they conduct certain activities in the United States or make payments to people who attack Americans. Roberts in Friday's ruling wrote that Congress and the president enacted the jurisdictional law based on their 'considered judgment to subject the PLO and PA (Palestinian Authority) to liability in US courts as part of a comprehensive legal response to 'halt, deter and disrupt' acts of international terrorism that threaten the life and limb of American citizens'. New York-based US District Judge Jesse Furman ruled in 2022 that the law violated the due process rights of the PLO and Palestinian Authority. The New York-based 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that ruling. President Joe Biden's administration initiated the government's appeal, which subsequently was taken up by President Donald Trump's administration. The Supreme Court heard arguments in the case on April 1.
Al Jazeera
17 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
US Supreme Court lets fuel producers challenge California emissions rules
The dispute centred on an exception granted to California on national vehicle emission standards, allowing it to set stricter rules than federal standards. The United States Supreme Court has sided with fuel producers that had opposed California's standards for vehicle emissions and electric cars under a federal air pollution law, agreeing that their legal challenge to the mandates should not have been dismissed. The justices in a 7-2 ruling on Friday overturned a lower court's decision to dismiss the lawsuit by a Valero Energy subsidiary and fuel industry groups. The lower court had concluded that the plaintiffs lacked the required legal standing to challenge a 2022 US Environmental Protection Agency decision to let California set its own regulations. 'The government generally may not target a business or industry through stringent and allegedly unlawful regulation, and then evade the resulting lawsuits by claiming that the targets of its regulation should be locked out of court as unaffected bystanders,' conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote for the majority. Liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented from the decision. The dispute centred on an exception granted to California during Democratic former President Joe Biden's administration to national vehicle emission standards set by the agency under the landmark Clean Air Act anti-pollution law. Though states and municipalities are generally preempted from enacting their own limits, Congress let the EPA waive the preemption rule to let California set certain regulations that are stricter than federal standards. The EPA's 2022 action reinstated a waiver for California to set its own tailpipe emissions limits and zero-emission vehicle mandate through 2025, reversing a 2019 decision made during Republican President Donald Trump's first administration rescinding the waiver. Advertisement Valero's Diamond Alternative Energy and related groups challenged the reinstatement of California's waiver, arguing that the decision exceeded the EPA's power under the Clean Air Act and inflicted harm on their bottom line by lowering demand for liquid fuels. The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit threw out the lawsuit in 2024, finding that the challengers lacked the necessary standing to bring their claims because there was no evidence that a ruling in their favour might affect the decisions of auto manufacturers in a way that would result in fewer electric and more combustion vehicles to be sold. Sceptical court California, the most populous US state, has received more than 100 waivers under the Clean Air Act. Sign up for Al Jazeera Americas Coverage Newsletter US politics, Canada's multiculturalism, South America's geopolitical rise—we bring you the stories that matter. Subscribe Your subscription failed. Please try again. Please check your email to confirm your subscription By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy protected by reCAPTCHA The Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has taken a sceptical view towards broad authority for federal regulatory agencies and has restricted the powers of the EPA in some important rulings in recent years. In 2024, the court blocked the EPA's 'Good Neighbor' rule aimed at reducing ozone emissions that may worsen air pollution in neighbouring states. In 2023, the court hobbled the EPA's power to protect wetlands and fight water pollution. In 2022, it imposed limits on the agency's authority under the Clean Air Act to reduce coal and gas-fired power plant carbon emissions.
