Brazil’s Supreme Federal Tribunal (STF) has decisively rejected an appeal by former President Jair Bolsonaro, preventing him from attending the inauguration of U.S. President-elect Donald Trump. The appeal sought the temporary return of Bolsonaro’s passport, which was seized last year amid investigations into an alleged coup attempt following his 2022 election defeat.
Justice Alexandre de Moraes, known for his role in several cases against Bolsonaro, upheld his previous decision not to restore Bolsonaro’s travel document. This ruling came despite Bolsonaro’s claims of being invited to the event by the Trump Vance Inaugural Committee.
The court’s decision was based on multiple factors:
- Insufficient Evidence: Bolsonaro failed to provide sufficient proof of his invitation to the inauguration.
- Flight Risk: Concerns were raised about Bolsonaro potentially fleeing Brazil to avoid prosecution.
- Public Interest: The Attorney General recommended against allowing Bolsonaro to travel, highlighting that public interest in keeping him in Brazil outweighed his personal interest in attending the inauguration.
Bolsonaro, barred from running for office until 2030 and facing criminal charges, has labeled this judicial decision as political persecution. He compared his situation to Trump’s legal battles in the U.S., suggesting a pattern of judicial overreach to sideline political figures.
Despite the court’s decision, Bolsonaro’s son, Eduardo Bolsonaro, publicly criticized the ruling, accusing the judiciary of engaging in political vendettas against his father. Meanwhile, Bolsonaro’s legal team has announced plans to appeal further, citing past precedents where individuals were granted travel rights despite legal challenges.
In response to the ban, Bolsonaro’s wife, Michelle Bolsonaro, will represent him at the inauguration. The former president himself intends to continue his legal battle to clear his name from the accusations, maintaining his innocence in the face of the ongoing investigations.
This judicial outcome has sparked debates on social media and among political analysts, with some viewing it as a necessary measure to ensure legal accountability, while others see it as an example of judicial overreach aimed at silencing opposition voices.
Article generated from legacy media reports.
