Brazil’s Supreme Federal Court (STF) issued sentences this Thursday to Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva’s early critics, rounding up three individuals accused of taking part in the attempt to overturn the new government a week after it began. The high court found Bolsonaristas guilty of criminal organization, coup activities, attempts to suspend the democratic rule of law, and various acts of vandalism against federal property as well as assets at the Administration Center, the Congress, and the STF building. Substantial fines were imposed on those on the far right. The 51-year-old public servant Aécio Lúcio Costa Pereira and the 24-year-old Matheus Lima de Carvalho Lázaro received sentences of 17 years in prison, while 43-year-old Thiago de Assis Mathar was handed a 14-year term.
Pereira, who pitched camp outside an Army barracks in São Paulo to challenge Lula’s win, participated in the occupation of the Senate headquarters and even recorded a video of himself seated in the chamber’s Executive Committee. In the footage, he wore a jacket bearing a slogan advocating federal military intervention. He stated on camera, in effect, that those who doubt should see the reality: the insurgent act was self-incriminating and left no doubt about a criminal enterprise, according to Judge Cristiano Zanin.
Meanwhile, blogger Wellington Macedo de Souza, convicted of attempting to detonate a device near Brasília International Airport, was also apprehended at the Paraguayan border.
Various judicial fronts
Early sentences come as scrutiny around former president Jair Bolsonaro intensifies, not only due to alleged ties to the events of January 8 but also because of other issues, such as his efforts to seize gifts from foreign countries and the choices he made during that period. The broader context includes the toll of the pandemic, which claimed more than 700,000 lives. Bolsonaro has already been barred from public office for eight years. Senator Flavio Bolsonaro, the former president’s son, argued that the STF aimed to press the theory of an intellectual mastermind behind the events, insisting there was no such brain. He claimed prosecutors sought denunciation deals with certain detainees as part of a broader plan.
The Cid case drew attention to Lieutenant Colonel Mauro Cid, who played a prominent role and acted at times with higher authority within public administrations. Cid reached an agreement with the Federal Police to cooperate in multiple investigations involving the former Army captain. He has been detained since last May on charges related to falsifying vaccination records, including those for Bolsonaro, to travel to Orlando, Florida, after Lula’s election defeat. The court ordered his release, with weekly court appearances mandated. Statements from Cid are expected to carry legal and political repercussions. Bolsonaro’s son is not alone in voicing concern; reports indicate that money from the sale of luxury watches received from the Saudi state was routed to Bolsonaro through intermediaries, involving the officer’s father. Bolsonaro has denied any receipt or misappropriation of public funds. See reports from independent outlets noting ongoing inquiries and responses from legal teams.
The political atmosphere remains charged as more information surfaces. Observers highlight that statements from the lieutenant colonel fueled investigations and that ongoing disclosures may shed further light on any planned actions tied to the former president. The STF’s initial sentences have coincided with shifts in public opinion, reflected in poll data showing Lula’s approval below half and a sizable share of voters from the far right expressing discontent with current leadership. The dynamic underscores the enduring influence of Bolsonarism in Brazilian politics, described by observers as both an ideological current and a political force that persists beyond any single campaign.
As the discourse evolves, public figures associated with Bolsonaro faced strong backlash for remarks viewed as provocative or harmful. Critics point to statements perceived as demeaning toward minority groups as part of a broader pattern, while supporters defend freedom of speech and critique what they see as media bias. The evolving legal cases and public dialogue illustrate a period of heightened political tension in Brazil, with implications for governance, accountability, and the balance of power among institutions.