What to know about Bolsonaro's trial now that he has testified over an alleged coup plot
After Bolsonaro and 33 allies were charged in February with five counts related to a plan to remain in power, a five-Justice panel of Brazil 's top court opened a first trial for eight of them, including the former leader.
Judges will hear from 26 other defendants in coming months.
The former president has repeatedly denied the allegations and said he is the target of political persecution, but kept a soft tone in his testimony on Tuesday.
The case stems from a Jan. 8, 2023 riot, when the Supreme Court, Congress and the Presidential Palace in Brasilia, the capital, were stormed by thousands of Bolsonaro supporters. Police say the uprising — which came after current President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva was sworn in — was an attempt to force military intervention and oust the new president.
If convicted for the alleged coup, Bolsonaro could be sentenced to up to 12 years. When combined with the other charges, the accused might face decades behind bars.
The case might not be over even after a conviction by the panel, which Bolsonaro can appeal before Brazil's Supreme Court full panel.
Here's what is next in the trial:
Testimonies
The testimonies of the eight defendants is the final stage of the evidence collection phase, but their attorneys are allowed to request additional searches to help their case. Legal experts have said it is unlikely that Justice Alexandre de Moraes, the presiding judge and a member of the panel, will allow it. The evidence phase will be deemed complete once de Moraes decides on all requests.
Final allegations
Fifteen days after the collection phase is finished, Brazil's attorney-general will be allowed to present his final allegations. The attorneys of the defendants will get the same chance. Each of those allegations are expected to take several hours or even days. This needs to be completed before July, when Brazil's Supreme Court enters its recess until August. As soon as the final allegations stage is completed, the sentencing phase starts.
Sentencing
A Supreme Court panel of five judges will decide whether Bolsonaro and his allies are guilty or not. The judges who will decide the future of Brazil's former president are de Moraes, Cármen Lúcia, Cristiano Zanin, Flávio Dino and Luiz Fux. All of them had public battles with Bolsonaro. De Moraes was the primary judge in several cases against the far-right leader, while Zanin and Dino joined the court as Lula's appointees. Lúcia and Fux were also targets of Bolsonaro during their respective tenures chairing the electoral court and the Supreme Court. Should Bolsonaro be convicted, these judges will also decide his penalty.
What if he's found guilty
Bolsonaro would still be able to appeal to Brazil's Supreme Court full panel. Brazil's top prosecutor could do the same if the former president is not convicted on all counts. Before any potential jail time, Bolsonaro's lawyers could further delay the conclusion of the trial by asking for clarifications on the decisions of each judge. Legal experts have said all these steps are likely to be concluded by the end of the year.
___
Follow AP's coverage of Latin America and the Caribbean at https://apnews.com/hub/latin-america
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Indigenous leaders demand action from South American leaders at Amazon summit
Indigenous leaders from across the Amazon are urging South American presidents meeting in Bogota this week to turn promises into concrete action, saying the gathering may be the first time at the conference they sit face-to-face with heads of state to demand a role in shaping the rainforest's future. The Fifth Presidential Summit of the Amazon Cooperation Treaty Organization, which officially begins in the Colombian capital on Tuesday, will bring together leaders alongside Indigenous representatives and scientists. The agenda includes public forums, cultural events and high-level meetings, culminating Friday with a joint 'Declaration of Bogota' setting regional priorities on environmental protection and climate policy. Indigenous groups from all eight Amazonian nations issued a statement on Monday evening, calling the rainforest a global lifeline that provides about one-fifth of the world's freshwater and acts as one of the planet's largest carbon sinks, absorbing vast amounts of heat-trapping carbon dioxide. They said decades of deforestation, mining, fossil fuel drilling and large-scale farming have pushed the region toward a point of no return. Among their demands are legal protection of Indigenous lands, recognition of their communities as official decision-makers within the treaty body, and a ban on new oil, gas and mining projects in the rainforest. They also propose a working group on a 'just transition' — a shift to cleaner energy and away from coal, oil or natural gas — and an observatory to track threats against environmental defenders. The groups noted that many commitments made in the 2023 Belem Declaration — a joint pledge by Amazon nations to cooperate on protecting the rainforest — have yet to be implemented, and cautioned against another round of 'empty promises.' They stressed that violence against activists continues to rise across the Amazon, calling for regional protection measures. The week-long program includes an 'Amazon Dialogues' forum bringing together civil society, scientists and Indigenous leaders; a panel on the rainforest's 'flying rivers' that help regulate South America's climate; and a 'Road to COP30' event meant to shape the Amazon's voice at the next U.N. climate conference in Brazil in November. 'There is no solution to any of the threats the Amazon is facing without its communities," said Raphael Hoetmer, a senior advisor at Amazon Watch, a U.S.-based nonprofit, attending the summit. 'There is an historical opportunity to create a mechanism for permanent and direct dialogue and participation with Indigenous peoples through the ATCO,' he said, referring to the Amazon Cooperation Treaty Organization, a bloc of eight Amazonian countries. Leaders from Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Guyana, Peru, Suriname and Venezuela are expected to attend, with hopes that it will be the first time Indigenous representatives will meet directly with heads of state during the summit. 'There will be no future without Indigenous peoples at the center of decision-making,' the groups said in the statement. ___ The Associated Press' climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at
Metro
an hour ago
- Metro
Lisa Nandy's ‘protect the dolls' T-shirt left a sour taste in my mouth
As Pride season draws to a close, I've been reflecting on who has spoken up for the LGBTQ+ community during this difficult time. It's been heartening to see people like Kate Nash, Mariah Carey, Nicola Coughlan and others affirm their support for trans rights, even as attacks on us continue. But seeing Labour's Lisa Nandy at Wigan Pride, wearing a T-shirt reading 'protect the dolls' – a slogan seen as being supportive of trans rights – left me with very mixed feelings. Not least because of Labour's horrendous approach to trans rights since taking power just over 12 months ago. Nandy, as a cabinet minister, is being justifiably accused of hypocrisy because of her choice of T-shirt, and how it squares with her party's stance on LGBTQ+ issues. When Keir Starmer entered government last July, many trans and non-binary people hoped things might finally improve for us – or at least not get worse after 14 years of the Tories. But that hope was quickly snuffed out. Not only have they abandoned previous commitments to LGBTQ+ people, like self-ID for trans people, but in my view, they've taken some of the harshest, most exclusionary stances possible – whether on puberty blockers, sport, or the Supreme Court ruling on 'sex' in the Equality Act. With thousands of members from all over the world, our vibrant LGBTQ+ WhatsApp channel is a hub for all the latest news and important issues that face the LGBTQ+ community. Simply click on this link, select 'Join Chat' and you're in! Don't forget to turn on notifications! And at no point did we see Lisa Nandy publicly speaking out, challenging her government, or even resigning on principle. Wes Streeting's decision to push through a ban on puberty blockers is a prime example. The Cass Report, which has been widely criticised since its publication, said that the case for the medication was 'incredibly weak'. This was a huge disappointment for the trans community, who have now seen hope taken away from younger generations that they can truly be themselves. Myself and my allies spoke out against the ban, and the Supreme Court's recent decision on sex as it relates to the Equality Act. I didn't see Lisa Nandy joining us. In fact, on trans and non-binary issues, the Wigan MP has herself also contributed to the noise. She claimed to feel 'incredibly uncomfortable' watching Imane Khelif box at 2024 Olympics, adding to a circus of misinformation surrounding the Algerian fighter – who online agitators claimed was trans, despite no evidence of that. It was a grim debate fuelled by misinformation and anti-trans panic, and for someone in Nandy's position to amplify it by describing an athlete's participation in the pinnacle of her sport as 'uncomfortable' is wrong. It's just another reason why eyebrows are being raised at Nandy's apparent support for trans people. To her credit, Nandy has at times spoken up in the past – once memorably clashing with Piers Morgan over his own comments about trans women in sport, and, when a leadership candidate, signing a pledge by the Labour Campaign for Trans Rights. But that was years ago, and for Labour, actions speak louder than words. With Keir Starmer declaring he doesn't believe people like me are women, and Equalities Minister Bridget Phillipson saying I should use men's toilets, it's hard not to despair and feel completely abandoned by Labour. So when I see Nandy marching in Pride with a 'protect the dolls' shirt, it feels hollow. How can you claim to protect us while the government you serve strips our rights away and undermines our identities and lived reality? That isn't allyship – it's performative politics. I can't feel that someone like Nandy actually supports me, when all recent evidence points to the contrary. Meanwhile, trans people are living with the consequences of anti-trans narratives and a hostile political landscape – while members of the Labour Party show up and march at Pride like nothing has happened. There is a clear disconnect, and it's deeply upsetting. And although I want to believe there was sincerity behind Nandy's choice to wear the shirt and march at Wigan Pride, it means nothing unless it translates into real action. And with a grim predictability, Nandy has received backlash not only from the LGBTQ+ community, but from anti-trans voices for wearing the shirt. More Trending It shows just how toxic and emboldened anti-trans bigotry has become. Any shred of support for our community, whether sincere or otherwise, is met with an array of abuse and toxicity. Maybe that backlash will be a wake-up call for Nandy and her colleagues – a chance to push back against the epidemic of transphobia sweeping this country. But I'm not holding my breath. Labour seems determined to fuel this culture war, tarnishing their legacy by targeting a vulnerable minority who threaten no one. I've given up any expectation that Labour will support us anytime soon. But I hold onto a different hope: that one day they'll look back in shame at what they did, and finally realise it wasn't us who were the problem – it was them. Do you have a story you'd like to share? Get in touch by emailing Share your views in the comments below. MORE: Love Is Blind's Katisha doesn't deserve your judgement MORE: Princess Andre's ITV docuseries changed my mind about her MORE: I had the gayest night of my life at Sao Paulo Pride – the biggest queer party in the world
The Herald Scotland
2 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
JK Rowling divides gender critics - but is it permanent?
Ms Rowling has been a vocal critic of the constitutional divide for more than a decade, voting No in the 2014 referendum and donation £1 million to the Better Together campaign. Equally though, she has always maintained friendships with people on both sides of the debate. Ms Rowling and the transgender exclusionary movement share a common dislike for the former first minister, given that she spearheaded the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill that set fire to the debate. It is surprising, then, that Ms Rowling's review of Ms Sturgeon's memoir caused such a schism in the movement. Ms Rowling took particular issue with the former first minister's argument that the independence debate was not "unpleasant and divisive". She wrote in her review that No voters were "being threatened with violence and to f*** off out of Scotland, quizzed on the amount of Scottish blood that ran in their veins, accused of treachery and treason". It immediately caused a divide. Pro-independence blogger Wings Over Scotland stated it had "ripped open an old wound between a bunch of gender-critical people who were getting along just fine". And getting along just fine they were. Arguably, the gender critical movement was at an all-time harmonious high. When the Supreme Court ruling linked the terms "woman" and "man" to biological sex in the Equality Act 2010, the triumph from campaigners was inescapable. And the employment tribunal between Sandie Peggie and NHS Fife reinvigorated the gender critical community with 10 days of non-stop news of their cause. After Ms Rowling's review, social media was awash with conflicting views: those urging pro-independence voters not to conflate the constitutional issue with the campaign for women's rights. Read more: But others felt that it was only right to call out the Harry Potter author. High profile figures joined in to contradict her version of events. Former SNP MP Joanna Cherry said she felt Ms Rowling's take may have exaggerated the bad behaviour during the referendum. The author's review omits "any reference to bad behaviour by Better Together supporters which also occurred," according to the former SNP MP. The KC said she experienced a "determined attempt" to "traduce" her professional reputation after she set up Lawyers for Yes. The author referenced the concerns, writing on X: "Did pro-union people behave badly, as well as nationalists? Yes, without a doubt. In any binary contest you will look around and find a lot of people standing in your camp you don't have a single thing in common with except on a single yes/no question. "There's a reason, though, that far more nationalists than unionists look back fondly on the run up to the referendum time. "Pro-independence politicians were happy to impugn remainers' motives in very ugly ways, and plenty elected MPs and MSPs contributed enthusiastically to online toxicity." Both Scottish independence and the gender debate have become two of the most divisive debates in the country's history. Ms Rowling's self-published review has reignited questions about how movements with shared values can fracture when broader identities and loyalties clash. Much like the debate around self-ID, the constitutional question continues to stir deep emotion and division. The Scottish independence movement has never overcome that division. The challenge now for the gender critical side, is whether it can overcome the deep differences for the benefit of its greater cause - and only time will tell.
