Between the Brazilian Supreme Court's Democratic Legacy and the Risks to Civic Space
By Bruno Brandão*
In recent years, the Brazilian Supreme Court (STF) has played a decisive role in defending democratic institutions against threats and attacks from the Bolsonaro government. The Court also prevented the implementation of several harmful policies by that government and Congress, which threatened the rights of minorities, public health, and the environment, and advanced the accountability of former President Jair Bolsonaro and his conspiratorial group for the attempted coup. This week, in judging members of the so-called "fake news nucleus," it reaffirmed that disinformation cannot hijack public debate or intimidate institutions.
This history makes the repeated conduct of Minister Gilmar Mendes even more worrying. Since 2019, he has been attacking Transparency International (TI), its Brazilian chapter, and its team, promoting disinformation about the organization's work.
On October 15, in his declaration of his vote that was broadcast live, the minister again repeated the false narrative that TI has received or managde resources from leniency agreements—an allegation already exhaustively refuted by various authorities, including the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office, the Attorney General's Office, and, recently, the Federal Court of Accounts.
The origin of this fake news dates back to November 2019, when the minister used the reading of a declaration of his vote to launch unfounded accusations against TI, a few days after the publication of a critical report on setbacks in the anti-corruption framework, presented to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). This report mentioned the Federal Revenue Service audit that included the wives of Supreme Court justices Dias Toffoli and Mendes—an audit that was suspended and never resumed.
In 2020, the narrative gained traction with an internal memo from the Attorney General's Office, signed by then-Attorney General Augusto Aras, insinuating that Transparency International was able to manage resources from the leniency agreement with the J&F business group—something factually and legally impossible, since the Memoranda of Understanding with the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (2014 and 2017) expressly prohibited any transfer of funds, did not foresee any role in resource management, and had expired in 2019. The document was leaked, fueled headlines, and was refuted by Deputy Attorney General Samantha Dobrowolski, but continued to be recycled in proceedings and speeches.
It is important to note how the distortions about Transparency International's relationship with Operation Lava Jato (Car Wash) also served—and still serve—as a basis for attacks on the organization. Evidently, Lava Jato played an extremely relevant role in the global Transparency International movement, by uncovering transnational schemes of macro-corruption that severely impacted countries institutionally and socially even more fragile than Brazil, in Africa and Latin America, where we maintain active chapters in practically all of them. The use of messages from Transparency International members in the so-called "Vaza Jato" leaks was crucial for the fabrication of all kinds of narratives aimed at the absolute delegitimization of any actor surrounding the operation. Excerpts were selected and decontextualized to support biased versions, while messages and public statements that evidenced disagreements, criticisms, and warnings from Transparency International regarding the operation itself were omitted.
We paid dearly both when we supported measures that we considered virtuous and when we criticized excesses and the rapprochement of leading figures of Lava Jato with Bolsonarism, which hijacked the anti-corruption discourse. We paid even more dearly when we denounced the conduct of some of the most influential authorities in the judiciary and large business groups. This is the reality that proves our independence: we are attacked by the left, by the right, and, above all, by those at the top.
For more than five years, Transparency International Brazil has faced judicial harassment in different instances. The most serious case is the criminal investigation opened in the Brazilian Supreme Court in February 2024, which remains active even after repeated requests from the Attorney General's Office for its dismissal due to a complete lack of evidence and the Court's lack of jurisdiction.
This situation was mentioned in the Third Regional Report of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights on Human Rights Defenders in the Americas, which warns of practices of criminalizing civil society and explicitly cites the case of Transparency International Brazil. The fact that the country's highest constitutional court is cited in a document that monitors risks to democracy and the freedom of action of defenders throughout the continent is an alarm bell that cannot be ignored.
The contradiction is evident: the same Court that distinguished itself in defending democratic institutions coexists with discourses and procedures that weaken civic space and normalize disinformation against those who fight corruption. This results in institutional and reputational costs for the country and discourages the civic collaboration essential to controlling power. The political context helps explain the permeability of these narratives. Polarization and the hijacking of the anti-corruption discourse by Bolsonarism—supported by exponents of Lava Jato—have alienated progressive sectors from this agenda. This scenario has allowed manipulated versions to be accepted even among peers in civil society, dampening solidarity reactions in the face of evident attacks on freedom of expression and association.
None of this diminishes Transparency International's confidence in the ethical majority of the judiciary nor the institutional respect due to the Brazilian Supreme Court. But it is urgent to re-establish the facts: TI has never received or managed resources from leniency agreements; its agreements with the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office prohibited any transfer of fund; it did not play any role in resource management, and expired in 2019; and the competent authorities have already refuted this fake news on several occasions. It is also essential that the requests of the Attorney General's Office be considered and that the use of judicial bodies to prolong unfounded suspicions against civil society organizations cease. Protecting the civic space is a condition for Brazil to preserve democratic credibility, guarantee security for those who act in the public interest, and rebuild the anti-corruption agenda as a state policy, free from political instrumentalization and authoritarian narratives.
*Bruno Brandão is the executive director of Transparency International – Brazil and a member of the Board of Directors of Transparency International.
