Brazil police raid home of Bolsonaro, accused of plotting coup
His son Eduardo Bolsonaro, a congressman who recently moved to the United States to lobby for his father, wrote on X that federal police carried out a "raid on my father's home this morning."
He lashed out at Supreme Court judge Alexandre de Moraes, a Bolsonaro adversary who on Friday ordered the ex-president to wear an electronic ankle bracelet, not leave his home at night, or use social media.
Mr. Moraes, one of the judges in Bolsonaro's trial for allegedly seeking to nullify leftist President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva's 2022 election victory, said the measures were necessary given the "hostile acts" against Brazil by the accused and his son.
This came after Mr. Trump announced a 50% tariff on the South American powerhouse for what he said was a "witch hunt" against his ally Bolsonaro.
Mr. Moraes, said Eduardo Bolsonaro, "has long abandoned any semblance of impartiality and now operates as a political gangster in robes, using the Supreme Court as his personal weapon."
The judge was "trying to criminalize President Trump and the US government. Powerless against them, he chose to take my father hostage," he added in a letter he signed as a "Brazilian congressman in exile."
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced Friday Washington was revoking a U.S. visa for Moraes for his "political witch hunt against Jair Bolsonaro."
'Supreme humiliation'
Accusing him of creating a "persecution and censorship complex," Rubio also announced visa restrictions on other judges who side with Mr. Moraes, as well as their immediate family members.
Bolsonaro, 70, described the Moraes order Friday as a "supreme humiliation" and said the prohibitions were "suffocating."
It also prohibited him from approaching foreign embassies, and confined him to his home on weekdays between 7:00 pm and 6:00 am, and all day on weekends or public holidays.
"I never thought about leaving Brazil, I never thought about going to an embassy," Bolsonaro insisted on emerging from the justice secretariat offices in Brasilia. He had been taken there after the raid, during which police seized cash.
His defense team in a statement expressed "surprise and indignation" at the new measures.
The former army captain denies he was involved in an attempt to wrest power back from Lula as part of an alleged coup plot that prosecutors say failed only for a lack of military backing.
After the plot fizzled, rioting supporters known as "Bolsonaristas" raided government buildings in early 2023 as they urged the military to oust Lula. Bolsonaro was abroad at the time.
The case against Bolsonaro carries echoes of Trump's failed prosecution over the January 6, 2021 attacks by his supporters on the U.S. Capitol to try and reverse his election loss to Joe Biden.
Both men have claimed to be victims of political persecution, and Mr. Trump has stepped in in defense of his ally, to the anger of Lula who has labeled the tariff threat "unacceptable blackmail."
Washington also announced an investigation into "unfair trading practices" by Brazil, a move that could provide a legal basis for imposing tariffs on South America's largest economy.
On Tuesday, prosecutors asked the trial judges of the Supreme Court to find Bolsonaro guilty of "armed criminal association" and planning to "violently overthrow the democratic order."
The defense must still present its closing arguments, after which a five-member panel of judges including Moraes will decide the ex-president's fate.
Bolsonaro and seven co-accused risk up to 40 years in prison.
He has repeatedly stated his desire to be a candidate in presidential elections next year, but has been ruled ineligible to hold office by a court that found him guilty of spreading misinformation about Brazil's electoral system.
Mr. Lula, for his part, said on Friday he intends to seek another term.
"You can be sure that I will be a candidate again... I will not hand this country over to that bunch of lunatics who almost destroyed it," the 79-year-old said at a public event in the state of Ceara.
Mr. Moraes has repeatedly clashed with Bolsonaro and other rightwing figures he has accused of spreading fake news.
Last year, the judge suspended tech titan Elon Musk's X network in Brazil for 40 days for failing to tackle the spread of disinformation shared mainly by Bolsonaro backers
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
Mumbai advocate moves Supreme Court against Raj Thackeray over ‘anti-Hindi' remarks
A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking criminal proceedings against Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS) chief Raj Thackeray for allegedly inciting violence and spreading linguistic hatred against Hindi-speaking citizens in Maharashtra. The petition was filed by Bombay High Court advocate Ghanshyam Upadhyay on Friday (July 18, 2025) and is expected to come up for hearing in the coming week. It calls for strict legal action under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and aims to curb what the petitioner describes as 'language-based chauvinism' that threatens India's constitutional values. The PIL alleges that Mr. Thackeray's recent public statements—particularly around the Marathi language—violate multiple sections of the IPC: Section 153A for promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of language and place of birth, Section 295A for deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage feelings and Section 505(2) for making statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes. The 114-page petition includes multiple news reports as evidence and alleges that Mr. Thackeray, along with his political party and its workers, has been involved in repeated incidents of mob violence and physical assault targeting individuals from other States residing in Maharashtra—particularly in cities such as Mumbai, Thane, Pune, and Raigad. The petition accuses Mr. Thackeray and his party of engaging in acts of aggression based on caste, creed, and language, labels such actions as anti-national. It further claims that these activities pose a serious threat to the sovereignty, integrity, and unity of India, and have continued unchecked and with impunity. Row over three-language policy On April 16 and June 17, 2025, the Government of Maharashtra issued resolutions introducing a three-language policy in primary schools. These decisions brought together two long-time political rivals—cousins Uddhav Thackeray and Raj Thackeray—who united in opposition to the inclusion of Hindi as the third language in schools. While their alliance is rooted in regional language concerns, the broader issue at hand reflects a long-standing debate over adopting Hindi as a national language. According to the petitioner, given that Hindi is widely spoken across many regions and relatively easy to learn, proponents argue it is a natural candidate to serve as India's national language. 'It is, however, disheartening to note that even after 78 years of Independence, Hindi has yet to be officially recognised as such. The petitioner therefore urges the Government of India to take necessary steps to declare Hindi as the national language in the interest of national unity,' Mr. Upadhyay said. The petition alleges that Mr. Raj Thackeray, in a bid to gain political ground ahead of the upcoming local body elections—particularly in the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation, one of the wealthiest civic bodies in the country, sought to exploit the controversy surrounding the introduction of Hindi as the third language in Maharashtra's primary schools. It claims that, in doing so, he has delivered a series of provocative speeches targeting Hindi-speaking migrants from States such as Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan, who have settled in cities such as Mumbai, Thane, Raigad, and Pune. The petition accuses Mr. Thackeray of actively promoting enmity between communities based on place of birth, residence, and language—actions that not only disrupt social harmony but also threaten the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of the nation. 'Threat of violence' 'Mr. Thackeray's speeches have incited public unrest, turning what began as opposition to Hindi into the forceful imposition of Marathi on non-Marathi speakers in Maharashtra. At a rally held around July 5, 2025, titled Awaj Marathicha, Mr. Thackeray allegedly endorsed physical violence, stating that those who don't speak Marathi should be struck 'below the eardrums'. He reportedly mocked Hindi-speaking States like Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Rajasthan as economically backward, questioning how Hindi could resolve problems in Maharashtra if it hadn't done so in those regions,' Mr. Upadhyay said. The PIL further claimed that Mr. Thackeray named Union Home Minister Amit Shah in his speech, misrepresenting his stance on language and employment. The petition accuses Mr. Thackeray of encouraging his party workers to assault and intimidate Hindi-speaking migrants, engage in incidents of mob violence, vandalism of shops, and targeted attacks in cities such as Mumbai, Thane, Pune and Raigad. Mr. Upadhyay said, 'One such case cited involves a businessman from Rajasthan who was allegedly beaten up in Mira-Bhayander for not speaking Marathi—an incident that sparked widespread protests from the local business community.' He is accused of publicly warning that such incidents were 'just trailers', threatening further violence if the use of Hindi is not curbed in Maharashtra. The petition alleges that in recent months, at Mr. Thackeray's behest, MNS workers began inspecting offices and business establishments to check if operations were being conducted in Marathi. In one instance, they allegedly stormed a bank and assaulted an employee for not speaking Marathi. Similar incidents reportedly involved a security guard and a Zomato delivery worker. 'Politically motivated' The petition further claimed that Mr. Thackeray's so-called 'Marathi pride' is politically motivated, aimed at consolidating votes ahead of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation elections—where a massive ₹74,427 crore budget is at stake. It accuses the MNS chief and his supporters of systematically targeting, intimidating, and humiliating Hindi-speaking migrants. 'Despite a formal complaint dated July 10, 2025, addressed to the Prime Minister, Union Home Minister, Maharashtra CM, Election Commission of India, and police authorities—urging FIR registration and even cancellation of MNS' recognition—no action has been taken,' Mr. Upadhyay said.
Time of India
3 hours ago
- Time of India
Congress, other parties criticizing new Waqf law want to keep Muslims as vote bank: Kiren Rijiju
Minority Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju accuses Congress and other parties of exploiting Muslims as a vote bank by opposing the Waqf (Amendment) Act. He defends the Act, emphasizing its aim to empower the Muslim community and ensure proper management of Waqf properties for their welfare. Rijiju asserts the government's commitment to justice for all, dismissing claims of unconstitutionality. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Minority Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju has alleged that the basic purpose of the Congress and some other parties criticizing the Waqf (Amendment) Act is to keep Muslims as their vote bank, and asserted that the Modi government believes in "appeasement to none, justice to all".With the Supreme Court in May reserving interim orders on three key issues after hearing both sides in the Waqf case, Rijiju said he will not make any preemptive statement right now with regard to the matter which is pending in the apex court."But let us make one thing very clear. The job of Parliament is to make laws. The Supreme Court can definitely interpret it in the right way," Rijiju told PTI Videos in an interview."We are very confident that whatever we have done is as per law and as per the provisions and spirit of the Constitution. I am very confident that the role of Parliament will not be taken away," he AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi 's criticism of the new Waqf law, Rijiju said he doesn't want to criticize Owaisi for his opposition to the Waqf (Amendment) Act because he made the remarks against the legislation out of compulsion."The main problem is what I tell you. Some of these leaders, including the Congress party, have treated the Muslims as a vote bank. When you start taking and making a community as a vote bank, then you become irrational."Then you put them into one bracket, that good or bad doesn't matter, they will all be rhetorical," the minister those who criticized the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, are only trying to keep the Muslims poor and ensure that they remain as their vote bank."Our thinking is opposite to that. Ours is appeasement to none, justice to all," Rijiju are many within the Muslim community, lots of groups, women, children and backward communities who have not gotten any benefit out of the Waqf properties, the minister told PTI on Friday."So, India's Waqf properties you know very well are the highest number of Waqf properties in the world. More than 9,70,000 Waqf properties are there which must be put into use for the purpose for which those properties were created," Rijiju pointed out that under the provisions of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, "we are to handle through the mutawallis and the waqf boards proper management for the welfare of the Muslim community, especially the poor.""These (Congress and some other leaders) people know that if the Muslim community becomes better, prosperous then they will be more educated, have more understanding and they will not be the main vote bank for anybody," Rijiju said."So, the basic purpose of Congress and some of the other leaders criticizing the Waqf (Amendment) Bill is to make Muslims as their vote bank and to keep them poor all the time," he said."Otherwise, tell me one reason why they should oppose the Waqf (Amendment) Bill? On a rational basis, they cannot," he the Collector being given more powers under the new law, Rijiju said, "We are making the rules, now it's in the final stage. There is no final authority to any officer. It is only responsibility being given to certain officers. If there are disputes between the government lands and the private, the collector has to decide, but the appeal has to be made to an officer which is higher than the collector. Otherwise, what is the job of the collectors? Collectors are there for revenue purposes primarily.""So, if you don't trust collectors, then who do you trust?" he its observation on the presumption of constitutionality in favour of the law, the Supreme Court in May reserved interim orders on three key issues after hearing both sides in the waqf Centre has strongly defended the Act, saying waqf by its very nature was a secular concept and can't be stayed given the presumption of constitutionality in its though waqf was an Islamic concept, it was not an essential part of Waqf (Amendment) Act was passed by Parliament in April and subsequently came into force through a government the BJP-led NDA had rallied in support of the Bill, the opposition INDIA bloc united in opposing Muslim bodies and opposition MPs had moved the Supreme Court against the law, which the ruling alliance has described as a force for transparency and empowerment of backward Muslims and women from the community. The Opposition has slammed it as unconstitutional and claimed that it infringes on the rights of Muslims.
NDTV
4 hours ago
- NDTV
"100 MPs Have Signed": Kiren Rijiju On Impeachment Move In Judge Cash Row
New Delhi: Over 100 MPs have signed their consent to bring an impeachment motion in Parliament against Justice Yashwant Varma, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju said, a day before the Monsoon Session begins. The judge hit headlines when a huge sum of unaccounted cash was recovered from his Delhi home after a fire in March. The cash recovery triggered allegations of massive corruption within the Judiciary, prompting the Supreme Court to start an inquiry. A three-member panel has recommended his impeachment, and the judge has challenged this in the top court. The cash recovery row has also played out against the backdrop of some voices in the ruling dispensation accusing the Supreme Court of judicial overreach, and stressing the supremacy of Parliament. According to the Constitution, a Supreme Court judge can be removed from office only through a Presidential order on the grounds of "proved misbehaviour or incapacity". A motion for impeachment in such a case will be admitted only if it has the support of at least 50 members in the Rajya Sabha or at least 100 in the Lok Sabha. This motion would need the support of two-thirds of the MPs in the House for passage. Earlier, Mr Rijiju said corruption in the judiciary is an "extremely sensitive" matter and all political parties are united on this issue. "The government will bring an impeachment motion against Justice Yashwant Varma in this session," he said today. Main opposition Congress, sources have said, has also joined cause with the ruling BJP on this front. About 35 Lok Sabha MPs, including Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi, have signed the proposal to bring the impeachment motion against the judge, the sources added. Monsoon Session Begins Tomorrow Mr Rijiju told the media that during the all-party meeting held a day before the new Parliament session begins, 40 representatives from 51 parties were present. "They presented their views and we requested everyone to ensure that the House runs smoothly. It is a shared responsibility - both the ruling and opposition sides must contribute. We will take up the suggestion of giving more time to smaller parties in the BAC (Business Advisory Committee) meeting, in accordance with the rules." The Opposition is expected to mount a spirited offensive against the government over the Pahalgam terror attack and ask tough questions regarding Operation Sindoor and US President Donald Trump's claims of having brokered the ceasefire between India and Pakistan. "We are ready to discuss all important issues, including Pahalgam and Operation Sindoor - but it must be as per parliamentary rules. We have listened to all suggestions from the opposition members," the Parliamentary Affairs Minister said today. On the Opposition's allegations that Prime Minister Narendra Modi often skips Parliament, Mr Rijiju said, "The Prime Minister is always present in the House, except during foreign visits or in rare special situations. Constantly dragging the Prime Minister into every issue is not appropriate. Whenever a particular department is being discussed, the minister concerned is present to respond," he said. The government has listed 15 bills for this session. These include key legislation on taxation, shipping, sports governance, and geo-heritage preservation. Opposition Preps Attack At the all-party meeting today, Congress MP and its Deputy Leader in Lok Sabha, Gaurav Gogoi, demanded that the Prime Minister address Parliament and respond to key questions on the Pahalgam attack, the government's foreign policy, and the unrest in Manipur. "Why hasn't the Prime Minister visited Manipur yet? We want focused discussions on national security and foreign affairs," he said. Supriya Sule (NCP), too, questioned why the terrorists who gunned down innocents in Pahalgam had not been caught yet. She also slammed a Maharashtra minister allegedly seen playing rummy in the Assembly. "Farmers are dying by suicide, and ministers are busy playing games. He must resign," she said. AAP's Sanjay Singh raised Trump's comments on Operation Sindoor and the Special Intensive Revision of voter list in poll-bound Bihar. BJD's Sasmit Patra expressed anguish over a student's self-immolation in Odisha and alleged that law and order in the BJP-ruled state had completely broken down. Samajwadi Party's Ramgopal Yadav alleged a foreign policy failure at the Centre and raised questions on the voter list revision in Bihar.
