&w=3840&q=100)
Brazilian judges accept charges against Bolsonaro allies in coup plot
A panel of Brazil's Supreme Court justices unanimously accepted criminal charges Tuesday against six more key allies of former President Jair Bolsonaro over an alleged coup plot to keep him in office after his 2022 election defeat.
Last month, the panel unanimously accepted charges against Bolsonaro and seven close allies over the alleged coup plot following his loss to current President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, and ordered the former right wing leader to stand trial.
When Prosecutor-General Paulo Gonet accused Bolsonaro and 33 others of attempting a coup, he divided them into five different groups, based on their roles and positions in the alleged plot.
Bolsonaro and his closest allies, including running mate Gen. Braga Netto, were placed in the core group, according to the charges. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court panel reviewed charges against the second group, which Gonet said held managerial roles.
The second group includes former presidential foreign affairs adviser Filipe Martins, retired Gen. Mario Fernandes, former Federal Highway Police director Silvinei Vasques, former presidential aide Col. Marcelo Camara and two federal police officers, Fernando Oliveira and Marilia Alencar.
These individuals coordinated actions planned by the core group, Gonet said in the indictment. These included mobilising police officers to support the alleged coup, monitoring authorities and drafting a document intended to justify a state of emergency.
Bolsonaro and his allies have repeatedly denied wrongdoing. The former president says that he's being politically persecuted.
Bolsonaro has been hospitalised for more than a week, recovering from bowel surgery. On Monday, from his hospital bed in Brasilia, he gave an interview to local television network SBT and said that his trial wasn't technical, but political.
Under Brazilian law, a coup conviction alone carries a sentence of up to 12 years, but when combined with the other charges, it could result in a sentence of decades behind bars. The former president is expected to stand trial in the next few months at Brazil's Supreme Court.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
3 hours ago
- New Indian Express
Affordable schooling should be top priority
The Telangana Private Schools and Junior Colleges Fee Regulatory and Monitoring Commission Draft Bill 2025 has been referred to a sub-committee. The draft has sound provisions, with a state-level commission as the main regulator supported by district-level committees. Unfortunately, as the bill is pending, this year's admissions took place with up to 60 percent higher fees, especially in Hyderabad. As reported in this newspaper, even pre-primary fees are hovering around ₹1-2 lakh in several schools on the pretext of digital upgrades and campus expansions. Given that many of them do not have the matching facilities, one cannot but conclude that it is mostly about milking a lucrative business. Recently, the Delhi government brought in an ordinance to regulate fee hikes after vociferous protests from parents. Whether it is Delhi or Telangana, quick-fixes would not work. We need effective laws and even more effective implementation. A glance at the numbers tells a sad story. Telangana has about 22,000 government and 15,000 private schools; but 34 lakh students study in the latter and only 24 lakh in the former. If you couple it with the fact that 2,097 schools had zero enrolment in 2023-24, you would get the picture. The belief that education is a business for making profit must not be allowed to hold sway over public consciousness. In 2004, the Supreme Court had said education is not for profiteering. But we see several elected representatives running for-profit educational institutions. This is a conflict of interest and is, perhaps, one of the reasons why so many government schools are in a sorry shape. Ambitious development targets cannot be achieved unless children in every part of a state can access good education. It should be our top priority.
Time of India
4 hours ago
- Time of India
SC pulls up Karnataka for inaction, says state must not yield to vigilante threats over 'Thug Life'
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has directed the Karnataka government to ensure that there is no obstruction to the release of Kamal Haasan-starrer film 'Thug Life' in the state. Following the direction, the state assured SC that it will provide protection to the film makers so that the film's release is not obstructed in the state. A bench comprising justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Manmohan also disapproved of the state's inaction in dealing with such threats to free speech . The development took place during the resumed hearing of a plea filed by a Bengaluru resident M Mahesh Reddy , who highlighted that despite having a valid censor certificate the film was effectively banned in Karnataka due to threats by fringe organisations and inaction by state authorities. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Morganville: Stunning New 2-Bed Senior Apartments (Take A Peek Inside) Senior Apartments | Search Ads Click Here Undo The petitioner urged SC to lay down guidelines to prevent such incidents from recurring in future, but the bench refused. The bench made it clear that the state government cannot bow to pressure from vigilante groups . "Just because of an opinion a movie is stopped, a stand up comedian is stopped, a person is stopped from reciting a poem ... You (State) succumbed to their pressure. In such circumstances the state has a duty. Simply saying a ban is not imposed will take it nowhere. You are hiding behind these groups," the bench verbally remarked. Live Events
Time of India
4 hours ago
- Time of India
Wife's WhatsApp chats can be used as evidence in divorce case even if obtained sans consent: HC
Bhopal: In a ruling that could shape how digital evidence is treated in matrimonial disputes, Madhya Pradesh high court has upheld the admissibility of WhatsApp chats between spouses, even if obtained without consent. Right to privacy is a Fundamental Right under Article 21 of the Constitution, but it is not absolute and can be subject to reasonable restrictions — particularly if it clashes with the right to a fair trial, which too is a constitutional guarantee, the bench of Justice Ashish Shroti observed in a recent order. The petition was filed by a woman challenging a family court order that allowed her estranged husband to exhibit private chats as evidence in an ongoing divorce case. The couple married on Dec 1, 2016, and have a seven-year-old daughter. The husband filed for divorce under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, alleging cruelty and adultery. To substantiate his claims, he relied on WhatsApp conversations that were allegedly forwarded to his phone via an app secretly installed on his wife's mobile device. These messages allegedly indicated an extramarital relationship. The wife filed a separate application seeking restitution of conjugal rights. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 5 Books Warren Buffett Wants You to Read In 2025 Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List Undo When the husband sought to introduce the WhatsApp chats as evidence during trial, the wife objected on the grounds that the material had been obtained illegally, in violation of her Fundamental Right to privacy. Her counsel argued that the husband's method to obtain the chats breached Information Technology Act. However, HC rejected these arguments, taking the view that under Section 14 of Family Courts Act, courts have the liberty to accept any evidence — regardless of admissibility under Indian Evidence Act — if it aids in the effective resolution of disputes. Justice Shroti emphasized that family courts operate under a special statutory framework designed to simplify rules of evidence in sensitive matrimonial matters. According to the court, this broad power exists specifically because many family-related disputes concern private and intimate details that often cannot be captured through conventional legal mechanisms. Citing Supreme Court precedents, Justice Shroti affirmed that evidence obtained even by unlawful means can still be accepted, provided it is relevant and authentic. The court also referred to the landmark privacy judgment in K S Puttaswamy v Union of India (2017) case, clarifying that the right to privacy, though fundamental, is not absolute and must be weighed against other constitutional rights such as the right to a fair trial. The court concluded that in cases involving conflict between two rights under Article 21 — the right to privacy and the right to a fair trial — the latter must prevail if public justice is at stake. In this context, the court held that excluding WhatsApp chats solely on grounds of privacy would frustrate the very object of Section 14 of Family Courts Act. The court invoked Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act, which generally prohibits disclosure of marital communications, but makes an explicit exception for suits between spouses, such as divorce proceedings. Justice Shroti stressed that courts retain full discretion to discard evidence during final adjudication if it is found unreliable or unauthenticated. He said that family courts exercise this wide discretion with caution. To prevent misuse, the court suggested safeguards such as strict verification of authenticity, use of in-camera proceedings where necessary, and maintaining decorum and propriety during trial. Concluding the judgment, the court upheld the family court's April 2023 order permitting the WhatsApp chats to be exhibited. Justice Shroti stated unequivocally that the test of admissibility is relevance, not the means of collection, and that the objectives of the Family Courts Act would be undermined if relevance were to be subordinated to privacy.
