Brazil's Bolsonaro takes the stand before Supreme Court over alleged coup plan
RIO DE JANEIRO — Brazil's former president Jair Bolsonaro denied participation in an alleged plot to remain in power and overturn the 2022 election result as he testified Tuesday for the first time before the Supreme Court over the charges.
Bolsonaro and seven close allies were being questioned by a panel of top judges as part of a trial over allegations they devised a multistep scheme to keep Bolsonaro in office despite his defeat to current President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.
'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 said.
The defendants are standing trial on five counts: attempting to stage a coup, involvement in an armed criminal organization, 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 decades behind bars.
The far-right politician took the stand just after 2:30 p.m. local time. When asked by Justice Alexandre de Moraes at the beginning of questioning whether the accusation was true, Bolsonaro said no.
'The accusation does not hold, Your Excellency,' Bolsonaro said. The former president has repeatedly denied the allegations and said he is the target of political persecution.
The eight defendants are accused of making up the plan's core group. Justices are also questioning Bolsonaro's former running mate and defense minister Walter Braga Netto, former ministers Anderson Torres and Augusto Heleno and ex aide-de-camp Mauro Cid, among others.
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.
Cid, who has signed a plea bargain with the federal police, told the court on Monday that Bolsonaro read and edited a document that aimed at canceling the election result.
Cid also said that Bolsonaro refused to interfere regarding camps by supporters that were set up in front of army facilities calling for a military intervention after the then-president lost the election.
Many of those followers were later part of the Jan. 8, 2023 riot, when the Supreme Court, Congress and presidential palace in Brasilia, the capital, were ransacked. Police say their uprising — which came after Lula was sworn in — was an attempt to force military intervention and oust the new president.
Prosecutor-General Paulo Gonet alleges the riot was one part of a sprawling, antidemocratic scheme to overturn the election result. Part of that plot allegedly included a plan to kill Lula and Justice Alexandre de Moraes. The plan did not go ahead at the last minute because the accused failed to get the army's commander on board, according to Gonet.
Bolsonaro, a former military officer who was known to express nostalgia for the country's past dictatorship, openly defied Brazil's judicial system during his 2019-2022 term in office.
He has already been banned by Brazil's top electoral court from running in elections until 2030 over abuse of power while in office and casting unfounded doubts on the country's electronic voting system.
Thiago Bottino, a law professor at the Getulio Vargas Foundation, a think tank and university, called the trial historic.
'It's the first time we see people accused of an attempted coup are being subjected to a criminal trial, with the guarantees of due criminal process — being able to defend themselves but answering for these accusations,' he said.
Eléonore Hughes, The Associated Press
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Winnipeg Free Press
6 hours ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Trump administration appeals to Supreme Court to allow $783 million research-funding cuts
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court on Thursday to allow it to cut hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of research funding in its push to roll back federal diversity, equity and inclusion efforts. The Justice Department argued a federal judge in Massachusetts was wrong to block the National Institutes of Health from making $783 million worth of cuts to align with President Donald Trump's priorities. U.S. District Judge William Young found that the abrupt cancellations ignored long-held government rules and standards. Young, an appointee of Republican President Ronald Reagan, also said the cuts amounted to 'racial discrimination and discrimination against America's LGBTQ community.' The ruling came in lawsuits filed by 16 attorneys general, public-health advocacy groups and some affected scientists. His decision addressed only a fraction of the hundreds of NIH research projects that have been cut. Monday Mornings The latest local business news and a lookahead to the coming week. The Trump administration's appeal also takes aim at nearly two dozen cases over funding. Solicitor General D. John Sauer pointed to a 5-4 decision on the Supreme Court's emergency docket from April that allowed cuts to teacher training programs to go forward. That decisions shows that district judges shouldn't be hearing those cases at all, but rather sending them to federal claims court, he argued.
Winnipeg Free Press
6 hours ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Labor rights group asks El Salvador's supreme court to strike down contentious ‘foreign agents' law
SAN SALVADOR (AP) — A labor rights group in El Salvador on Thursday asked the country's Supreme Court to strike down a contentious 'foreign agents' law promoted by President Nayib Bukele, which critics have said is intended to silence dissent. The law, passed in May, imposes a 30% tax on funds or donations received from foreign organizations, often a crucial source of funding for human rights, news and watchdog organizations that have repeatedly challenged the government. The passing of the law comes amid a wider crackdown by the government on dissent, which has forced more than a hundred people to flee the country in political exile in recent months. In addition to the steep tax, the law requires all organizations operating in the country that receive foreign funding to register with a new government body, which would have broad authority to determine compliance requirements. Critics say that would make it easier for the government to shut down civil society groups and criminalize dissenters and mimics legislation used by governments like Russia, Venezuela and Nicaragua. On Thursday, leaders of the Movement for the Defense of the Rights of the Working Class (MCDT) filed a complaint with the country's Supreme Court, claiming the law violates more than a dozen articles of the Salvadoran constitution. 'The law seeks to criminalize individuals and organizations that defend human rights, like Ruth López, Enrique Anaya, and others who have publicly denounced human rights abuses and alleged acts of corruption by officials in the current administration,' said Silvia Navarrete, a representative of the group, referring to two recently jailed lawyers. Another MCDT leader, Morena Murillo, said the legislation targets organizations that challenge the government by documenting rights violations and criticizing what she described as the erosion of democratic institutions and the separation of powers. The legislation applies to any person or organization—Salvadoran or foreign—conducting activities in El Salvador that are influenced, financed, or directed, directly or indirectly, by foreign interests. Roughly 8,000 organizations operate in El Salvador, though not all are registered with the Ministry of Governance. Recently, Cristosal — one of Bukele's most prominent critics — announced it was leaving the country, citing mounting legal threats and harassment by the Salvadoran government. The decision came after its lead anti-corruption attorney, Ruth López, was jailed in June on corruption charges, which she denies.
Toronto Star
7 hours ago
- Toronto Star
Supreme Court blocks North Dakota redistricting ruling that would gut key part of Voting Rights Act
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Thursday blocked a lower-court ruling in a redistricting dispute in North Dakota that would gut a landmark federal civil rights law for millions of people. The justices indicated in an unsigned order that they are likely to take up a federal appeals court ruling that would eliminate the most common path people and civil rights groups use to sue under a key provision of the 60-year-old Voting Rights Act.
