Dear journalist,

Once again, on this date, your column “Na luta pela sobrevivência” (freely translated as “The struggle for survival”) brings a pretentious legal analysis on the case involving former President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.

The allegation about the existence of “sufficient cause to charge Lula in a new case”, and, also the statement “investigations must find him guilty” are legally invalid. Your reasoning combines unrelated facts and, even worse, the false narrative leads the reader to wrong conclusions.

The plea bargain agreement of Odebrecht executives has not been ratified and, consequently, it holds no legal validity at this moment. It is strictly confidential and any reference to its terms must be deemed mere speculation.

There are inescapable facts that you have not examined: Lula has never requested, received or accepted the ownership of a property “for the Institute” (where Lula Institute operates) or of the apartment next to where he lives. Your column ignores all the statements made by the defense on the matter.

Additionally, these properties and Lula’s duties in office as President of the Republic - from 2003 to 2010 - have no connection whatsoever. This completely removes the elements necessary to charge Lula for solicitation of bribe, under Article 317 of the Criminal Procedure Code – which seems to be the base for that reasoning in your publication.

It’s important to note that former President Lula made a public statement explaining that the property was offered to host the Democracy Memorial, but it was outright and unequivocally rejected by decision of the executive board of Instituto da Cidadania (Citizenship Institute), which later became Lula Institute.

Under the pretext of writing about the situation at Odebrecht, your column focuses on Lula, instead. Besides, you clearly omit facts that have already been refuted by the defense, thus avoiding any suggestion of crime. It irrefutably demonstrates the fragility of the presented arguments.

In fact, the nature of your text is not journalistic. It is congruent with the tactics of “lawfare” for keeping a permanent negative exposure of Lula’s image and reputation. Publications such as yours serve to mask the lack of any materiality of public officials’ suspicion against the former President so as to start several frivolous investigation procedures, with the sole intention of compromising his political activity.

The “struggle for survival” is not restricted to the company mentioned in your text. It involves the Rule of Law, as the Court’s environment has become a stage for political arguments and without respect for the law.

Cristiano Zanin Martins