Brazil ex-President Bolsonaro gagged, shut out: ‘No social media, no diplomacy, no escape'
The former Brazilian president is currently on trial at the Supreme Court accused of leading an alleged attempt to stage a coup to overturn the 2022 election in which he was defeated by left-wing president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.
Not just the ankle monitor as a layer of precaution, the Brazil Supreme Court has also ordered the former president to cease all communications with his son Eduardo and Ambassadors, as well as stop using social media.
Bolsonaro's lawyers in a statement expressed "surprise and indignation" at what they called "severe precautionary measures imposed against him," adding that the former president has so far complied with court orders, reported Reuters.
Bolsonaro has described the trial on X as a 'witch hunt,' echoing a term used by POTUS Donald Trump when he came to his South American ally's defense last week.
The Brazil Supreme Court also revealed that Brazilian police have accused Bolsonaro of working with his son, Eduardo, a Brazilian lawmaker who has been lobbying in Washington, DC, to influence the administration of US President Donald Trump to impose sanctions on Brazil, as per multiple reports.
The Brazilian Supreme Court has further directed that Bolsonaro could be arrested if he does not comply with the precautionary measures.
Reacting to the slew of measures, Jair Bolsonaro said on Friday he never considered fleeing the country and that the Supreme Court's order, directing him to war an ankle bracelet, amounted to his 'supreme humiliation,' reported Reuters.
'The court order aims to humiliate me," news agencies also quoted Bolsonaro as saying.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
5 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
SC junks Bengal Govt's review plea against cancelling 25,753 school appointments
The Supreme Court has dismissed a batch of review petitions filed by the West Bengal government, the state school service commission and others challenging its April 3 ruling that annulled the appointment of 25,753 teachers and staff in state-run and aided schools. The Supreme Court of India. (File) A bench of justices Sanjay Kumar and Satish Chandra Sharma, in its August 5 order made public on Tuesday, held that the review pleas amounted to a re-hearing on merits and could not be entertained since 'all relevant aspects have already been examined and considered comprehensively.' 'The judgment dated 3rd April, 2025, was passed after hearing extensive and exhaustive arguments and upon considering all aspects, factual and legal,' the bench recorded. It reiterated that findings of the Justice (Retd) Bag Committee, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe and admissions by service commission and the West Bengal board of secondary education established 'illegalities in the selection process' and attempts at a 'cover-up of lapses.' The court emphasised that the WBSSC's failure to preserve original OMR sheets or even their mirror copies 'was a significant factor' that weighed against it, making verification of candidates' merit 'more difficult, if not impossible.' The attempt to camouflage irregularities convinced the bench that the entire 2016 recruitment exercise stood compromised, leaving invalidation as the only way to 'maintain the sanctity of the process.' While acknowledging that cancelling even untainted appointments would cause 'heartburn and anguish,' the court said protecting the purity of the selection process had to take precedence. 'The adverse remarks made against the authorities concerned, who were wholly and solely responsible for this entire imbroglio… were fully warranted and justified,' stated the order, dismissing all review petitions. The review petitions arose from the Supreme Court's April 3 judgment which had set aside the entire 2016 selection process of assistant teachers and groups C and D staff. A bench led by then CJI Sanjiv Khanna had found the recruitment 'vitiated and tainted beyond resolution' after uncovering 'manipulations and frauds on a large scale' and 'cover-ups at each stage.' The Calcutta high court had earlier annulled the appointments in April 2024 based on a CBI probe that exposed blank OMR sheets, manipulated answer scripts and candidates who were neither in the merit list nor waitlisted making it to the selection roll. Despite the Board recommending 22,930 candidates, the school service commission issued 25,735 appointment letters. The apex court, in its judgment, noted the commission's contradictory claims regarding possession of scanned OMR sheets, calling them a deliberate attempt to conceal data. It also found that marks of candidates were withheld until directed by the high court, suggesting 'likely manipulation.' The court, while nullifying all appointments, had at the time carved out limited reliefs, which included allowing untainted candidates to re-apply in fresh recruitment with age relaxation, though their services were terminated. Those previously employed in government service were also allowed to seek reappointment in their old departments without break in service. The top court, however, upheld recovery of salaries from tainted candidates, terming their appointments products of 'fraud' and 'cheating.' Following the state government's argument that the widespread firings had negatively affected school education, the court in April extended the services of the terminated teachers -- those who had been cleared by CBI, until December 31. Meanwhile, the CBI's ongoing probe into the recruitment scam has already seen arrests of senior Trinamool Congress leaders, including former state education minister Partha Chatterjee, with allegations that jobs were sold for money.
Mint
35 minutes ago
- Mint
Centre to move constitutional amendment about UTs in Lok Sabha tomorrow, says report. Is JK statehood on cards?
Prime Minister Narendra Modi-led Union government is likely to introduce the J&K Reorganisation Constitutional Amendment in Lok Sabha on Wednesday, 20 August. Union Home Minister Amit Shah has written to the secretary-general of Lok Sabha Utpal Kumar Singh notifying him that he intends to move a Union Territory Administration (Amendment) Bill, 2025, in the ongoing monsoon session of the parliament, according to a report in The Tribune. Jammu and Kashmir's statehood was annulled on 5 August 2019 after Article 370 was abrogated. The erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir was bifurcated into two Union Territories – J&K and Ladakh. The reports said Shah has also marked the letter for the Union minister of parliamentary affairs, Kiren Rijiju, the legislative department of the Ministry of Law and Justice, the Lok Sabha secretariat, and the legislative office of the Lok Sabha. Shah also wrote to the Lok Sabha's secretary-general to move an associated 130th Constitutional Amendment Bill, 2025. The Supreme Court on 14 August sought the central government's response in 8 weeks on Jammu and Kashmir's statehood petition. It said the situation in J&K cannot be overlooked while emphasising the recent Pahalgam terrorist attack, legal news website Bar and Bench reported. The situation in J&K cannot be overlooked. A Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran heard the petition filed by college teacher Zahoor Ahmed Bhat and activist Khurshid Ahmad Malik. The SC observed that the ground situation must be considered when restoring statehood. According to Bar and Bench, CJI BR Gavai said, 'You cannot ignore what happened in Pahalgam. "
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
35 minutes ago
- Business Standard
SC questions Kerala, TN on their objection to President seeking views
The Supreme Court has raised questions to the states of Kerala and Tamil Nadu regarding their preliminary objection to the President of India seeking views from the apex court. Chief Justice of India (CJI) Justice BR Gavai directed the counsels of both states to clarify their objection to the maintainability of the reference made by President Droupadi Murmu under Article 143. The reference concerns a ruling by the Supreme Court that set timelines for Governors and the President to grant assent to bills passed by the legislature. In the April 8 judgment, a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan invoked special powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to fix deadlines for the President and Governors to act on state bills. The court clarified that it was offering only a view on the law, not a decision in the Tamil Nadu case. 'We will be expressing just a view of the law, not on the decision in the Tamil Nadu case (April 8),' the CJI added. Justice Surya Kant stated that the court is in an advisory, not appellate, jurisdiction. 'In Article 143, the court can render an opinion that a certain judgment does not lay down correct law, but it will not overrule the judgment,' Justice Surya Kant noted. Attorney General for India R Venkataramani, on Tuesday, informed a Constitution Bench of Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha, and Atul S Chandurkar that Articles 200 and 201, which deal with the powers of the Governor and President to give assent to bills, are part of the basic structure of the Constitution. He argued that the Tamil Nadu judgment, which fixes timelines for these authorities, dilutes their power to reject bills that do not comply with the Constitution. 'To say the basic structure is only informed by a democratic principle confined to the legislature is not an advisable interpretation of the basic structure doctrine. Articles 200 and 201 are also part of the basic structure, where the President and the Governor play an important role in ensuring that if a bill does not comply with the Constitution, they have the power to stop it,' Venkataramani said. Following the April 8 judgment, the President invoked Article 143(1) of the Constitution, seeking the Supreme Court's opinion on questions of law or fact of public importance. On May 13, President Murmu posed 14 questions to the Supreme Court regarding various aspects of law, including the scope of powers under Article 142. In response, Kerala and Tamil Nadu filed applications questioning the maintainability of the reference. They urged the Supreme Court to dismiss the reference, claiming it was an attempt by the Centre to indirectly overrule binding judgments without disclosure. Meanwhile, the Central government supported the reference, asserting that the powers of Governors and the President to act on bills cannot be constrained by judicial timelines. The hearing will continue on Wednesday.
