Mendonça’s decision to suspend federal police chief is unprecedented. What it means and what comes next

Justice André Mendonça’s decision to remove the director-general of Brazil’s Federal Police has no clear precedent in the country, according to legal experts interviewed by Estadão. They also said the move runs against the consolidation of Brazil’s accusatory criminal procedure system.

Under the traditional process, prosecutors bring charges and request sanctions while a judge rules on them. Lawyer and postdoctoral researcher in democracy and human rights Marcelo Peruchin said Mendonça acted on his own initiative, disrupting the separation of roles required by due process. Without an opinion from the Office of the Prosecutor General, he said, the justice imposed an administrative sanction that normally falls within the executive branch.

Peruchin also criticized the basis for the suspension, which relied on what Mendonça described as a presumed risk arising from reports produced by the Federal Police. He said this was the first time a single-justice decision had removed the leadership of Brazil’s Federal Police, and noted that the case was brought by a political party without the Prosecutor General’s prior hearing.

“

What draws attention is that this is the first time that a single-justice decision has removed the leadership of Brazil’s Federal Police.

The suspension of Andrei Passos and Leandro Almada took effect when the order was published. The Second Panel formed a majority to confirm the decision, with votes from Justices Luiz Fux and Kassio Nunes. The ruling has not yet been formally ratified because Justice Gilmar Mendes requested more time to review the case.

The suspension of Andrei Rodrigues and Leandro Almada therefore remains in force until the panel finishes its judgment. Experts said it could be halted only by a new decision, such as an order staying the proceedings by the court’s presidency. Justice Edson Fachin, once president of the Supreme Federal Court, could potentially annul Mendonça’s decision, they said.

Peruchin said the court’s president would need to organize the tribunal, define the scope of the dispute and take the matter to the full court for a collective decision.

“

The president needs to organize the court with a corrective pause, determine the scope of what is happening, organize the agenda and bring it to the full court so there can be a collective decision.