Brazil's Supreme Court Faces Internal Tension Over Master Case

The Supreme Court is actively negotiating a solution to remove the Master case from its docket, a move aimed at preserving the institution's reputation amid growing controversy. The proposed resolution involves returning the complex investigations to their original jurisdictions in the first-instance courts of Brasília and São Paulo.

This potential transfer of jurisdiction comes as the case's relator, Justice Dias Toffoli, faces mounting pressure over his handling of the proceedings. His decisions have drawn criticism from both political and legal circles, with some colleagues describing them as 'atypical.' The final ruling on the case's future is anticipated after the Carnival holiday period.

The Master case's journey to the nation's highest court began with a specific procedural trigger. During the Compliance Zero operation, the Federal Police seized a document that mentioned federal deputy João Carlos Bacelar of the PL party from Bahia. Because congressmen hold foro privilegiado—a special legal privilege that grants them immunity from prosecution in lower courts—their legal defenses successfully petitioned for the case to be elevated to the Supreme Court.

However, the legal foundation for maintaining the case at this level has since eroded. Despite the initial document that triggered the transfer, subsequent investigations have produced no additional evidence linking Deputy Bacelar to the proceedings. In fact, he is not even formally under investigation. With the Federal Police concluding their investigative work and no new facts emerging that involve the deputy, the rationale for keeping the case at the Supreme Court level has largely disappeared.

The situation has prompted significant behind-the-scenes activity from the court's leadership. President Edson Fachin cut his vacation short on Monday, January 19, to engage in intensive consultations with his colleagues. His diplomatic efforts have been extensive and methodical.

Fachin has maintained near-daily conversations with Justice Toffoli, the case's relator. In a notable move, he traveled to Maranhão to meet with former governor and current minister Flávio Dino. On Thursday, January 22, he flew to São Paulo for a meeting with the court's former dean, the retired minister Celso de Mello. He also spoke by telephone with retired minister Rosa Weber.

A key principle guiding Fachin's position is the independence of judicial relators. According to sources close to the president, Fachin has privately stated that in a democracy, it is not the role of the Supreme Court president to remove a case from a minister's docket. This stance favors a procedural solution—returning the case to lower courts—over an internal administrative one that could set a contentious precedent.

Justice Toffoli's management of the case has been marked by several decisions that have drawn scrutiny. These actions, considered unusual by some within the legal community, have contributed to the pressure surrounding the case.

Among the most debated measures are:

• Restricting Federal Police access to mobile phones seized during police operations
• Ordering a confrontation between technicians from the Central Bank—which decreed the liquidation of Master Bank—and executives from the bank of Vorcaro
• Traveling in a private aircraft alongside a lawyer for the Master Bank

Beyond these procedural decisions, a separate controversy has emerged involving the justice's family. It was recently revealed that funds connected to the Master case purchased the share of Justice Toffoli's brothers in a resort located in Ribeirão Claro, Paraná. The transaction was first reported by O Estado de S. Paulo and later confirmed by TV Globo, adding another layer of complexity to the ongoing situation.

The Master case represents a significant test for the Supreme Court's internal governance and public perception. The potential return of the investigations to the first instance is not merely a procedural adjustment but a reflection of the court's struggle to balance judicial efficiency with the principles of jurisdictional appropriateness.

The case highlights the delicate balance between judicial independence and institutional oversight. While the president of the court cannot unilaterally remove a relator from a case, the broader context of public scrutiny and internal consensus can influence the direction of proceedings. The fact that Fachin has engaged in such widespread consultation demonstrates the gravity with which the court is treating this matter.

As the Carnival holiday approaches, the legal community and the public await Justice Toffoli's decision. The outcome will likely have implications for how similar cases involving jurisdictional privileges are handled in the future, setting a precedent for the intersection of political privilege and judicial investigation.

The Master case stands at a critical juncture, with its resolution expected to unfold after the Carnival holiday. The potential return of the investigations to the first-instance courts in Brasília and São Paulo represents a significant shift in the case's trajectory, one that would effectively close the Supreme Court chapter of this particular investigation.

This development underscores the complex interplay between judicial procedure, political privilege, and institutional integrity. The case has revealed the intricate processes that govern Brazil's highest court, from the president's diplomatic efforts to the relator's controversial decisions. As the legal community watches closely, the outcome will likely influence how the Supreme Court navigates similar jurisdictional challenges in the future.

The Master case serves as a reminder that even the nation's most powerful judicial body operates within a framework of checks, balances, and public accountability. Its resolution will be closely watched not only for its immediate legal implications but for what it reveals about the health and functioning of Brazil's judicial system.