RIO DE JANEIRO, BRAZIL – Rio de Janeiro Governor Wilson Witzel, removed from office by a Federal Superior Court (STJ) ruling last Friday, August 28th, denied having committed the crime of administrative improbity, and urged the Legislative Assembly of the State of Rio de Janeiro (ALERJ) to be spared the impeachment process. The state legislative house heard the governor‘s defense on Thursday, September 3rd.
Witzel’s defense counsel brief, prepared by a team of attorneys headed by Ana Basílio, argues that the governor acted as soon as the frauds in Rio’s Health Secretariat became public during the Coronavirus pandemic and points to the then head of the portfolio, Edmar Santos, as the official who “commanded all illicit acts at the head of the Secretariat”.
The attorneys also state that the denunciation being processed at the ALERJ uses facts that no longer occur – an instance of this was the disqualification of the Unir Saúde Institute, said to be linked to entrepreneur Mário Peixoto, and which received R$23 million (US$4.6 million) in funds, even before the impeachment process was initiated in the Rio de Janeiro House.
“The investigations conducted by the MPRJ [Rio de Janeiro Prosecutor’s Office] were triggered as soon as the first indications of irregularities in the purchase of ventilators emerged. In light of this, the accused ordered the immediate dismissal and subsequent exoneration of Undersecretary Gabriell Neves,” reads the text.
The attorneys then argue that the purchase procedures have always been public. “This conduct enabled the prompt identification of mistakes and the immediate investigation,” the document continues.
The result of the MP’s investigations in Rio, according to Witzel’s attorneys, led to improbity suits against Santos and staff, as well as companies; they do not mention the ousted governor. “There is no evidence in the record that he [Witzel] would have acted with intent,” the attorneys point out.
“Case law has already established the precedent that mere irregularity is in no way to be confused with improbity. For there to be the maximum sanction [impeachment], the existence of gross malfeasance on the part of the accused is indispensable, that is, a strong subjective component, which evidences the purpose of causing injury to the Public Administration and violation of any of its principles, thus typifying malice or recklessness on the part of the official, which did not occur in the circumstances of the case,” states the text.
Witzel’s defense accuses Federal Deputy Otoni de Paula, a Bolsonarist ally, of having taken the complaint to the Office of the Prosecutor General (PGR) based on “newspaper clippings”. The deputy “is strongly politically opposed to the accused and is part of President Jair Bolsonaro’s shock troops, a declared a political opponent of the accused”, according to the text.
“In the denunciation, supported only by newspaper clippings, there was nothing to suggest any involvement of the accused, any consent, any kind of link between him and any potential administrative irregularity within the state government of Rio de Janeiro,” the attorneys claim.
Also according to the document, the MPF’s indictment “is based on the assumption that the governor had full knowledge of the details involving emergency hiring due to his posts on the social network Twitter”.
Witzel states that a team posts on his behalf.
The ousted governor’s defense team also demands written testimony and accounting evidence so that the facts described in the indictment can be proven by the ALERJ, and demands that witnesses be heard – among them, former undersecretary Neves, the former secretary of Health, and the state prosecutors.
The document emphasizes that the deadline for the presentation of the defense’s case before the ALERJ’s Special Impeachment Commission was July 29th after the governor was subpoenaed on July 7th, but due to diverging decisions by Federal Supreme Court Chief Justice Dias Toffoli, and Justice Alexandre de Moraes, only last Tuesday, September 1st, did the President of the Legislative Assembly of the State of Rio de Janeiro, André Ceciliano, subpoenae the governor to present a defense “without clarifying how many [legislative] sessions would already have been computed”.
“One more political attempt is made to remove the democratically elected governor. This intention is part of a broader and concerted effort to remove, through similar impeachment processes of local governments opposed to the federal government, within several federal states (AM, PA, SC)”.
According to the governor’s attorneys, the political eagerness to remove him has led to “the majority” of the facts found in the impeachment petition not being included in the indictments and, when they are, “they are not directly related to the governor.” “There is not a shred of evidence that would allow the deputies to justify the reasons for their votes, there are no grounds for them to vote. But the fact is that they have already done so. So the process is null and void,” says the defense.
Witzel’s attorneys further say that “what indeed does exist is a continuation of speculative denunciations, based on spectacular journalistic stories and political will, without any probative basis and without due evidence of the existence of malicious or even culpable acts committed by the governor.”
Witzel’s arguments were delivered to the 25 members of the legislative committee. There are up to five sessions for consideration and preparation of the report that will be put to a vote in plenary session. The deadline began to run on Thursday.
Witzel’s impeachment defence is expected to be ready by September 17th, after the Rapporteur state deputy Rodrigo Bacelar has submitted the document, which will still be put to a vote by the Impeachment Special Committee before reaching the plenary. It should be noted that the state deputy has been accused by the PGR of involvement in the state government’s corruption scheme.
Source: Veja