The lack of probable cause and the recurrence of improper charges against former President Lula stand out in the complaint brought against former President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, and others, yesterday (04/30) by the Office of the Federal Attorney General (PGR). Regarding this new initiative of the Federal Attorney’s Office against Lula, we must make it clear that:

1- The complaint does not try to hide that once again Lula has been charged with a crime for performing an act as the President of Brazil that is completely lawful – which was signing the Memorandum of Understanding between Brazil and Angola on 06/23/2010, with the purpose of strengthening the relationship between these countries and of helping solidify the new democracy instituted in the African country;

2 – The complaint does not point out anything that indicates Lula has signed the said memorandum of understanding with Angola with the purpose of promoting Odebrecht’s, or any other company’s or businessmen’s, hidden interests – because there is no such thing. Some prosecutors are simply trying to criminalize all of Lula’s governmental actions by using the argument of the control theory even though there is not enough evidence of liability to do so, thus violating the foundations of the Rule of Law and of democracy itself;

3- Applying the control theory, as it is the intention of the Federal Attorney’s Office, makes it possible for any leader to be held liable just for being in office, something which is unacceptable and incompatible with the precedents of the Federal Supreme Court; 4- The complaint was based on Investigation 4,342 filed before the Federal Supreme Court, in which Lula was neither asked to be heard nor had the opportunity to provide any explanation;

5- The complaint is based solely on the testimonies given by Marcelo Odebrecht and by Emílio Odebrecht, as part of their plea bargain agreements, and on an Excel spreadsheet presented by the latter; said spreadsheet did not follow the standards adopted in the systems used by formal or informal accounting departments of Odebrecht and cannot be compared with data from MyWebDay system (Odebrecht’s parallel accounting system) — since the Federal Police verified it could not be opened;

6- The Federal Supreme Court has established the opinion that plea bargain agreement testimonies cannot serve as evidence of any fact or be used as grounds for an indictment;

7- The complaint also ignores the request to investigate the same facts contained in Complaint 6,738, which had also been originally filed by the PGR [Office of the Federal Attorney General] and is currently pending before the Brasília Federal Court after the granting of an appeal (internal interlocutory appeal) filed by the former President’s defense — which reformed the decision rendered by Justice Edson Fachin ordering the investigation to be sent to the 13th Federal Criminal Court of Curitiba;

8- Therefore, the MPF [Federal Attorney’s Office] reinforces the practice of filing countless cases and investigation proceedings against Lula about the same facts and with no existence of crime, treating him as an enemy that must be defeated at all costs, including the impossibility to defend himself;

9- At the request of the MPF, the 13th Federal Criminal Court of Curitiba has frozen all of Lula’s assets, thus preventing him from defending himself in said cases and proceedings. This is a violation of the constitutional guarantees of adversary proceeding and right to a fair hearing (Federal Constitution/88, art. 5, LV) and results in the nullity of all acts;

10- The complaint reinforces that Lula is the victim of “lawfare,” which consists of the misuse and abuse of laws and legal proceedings for political persecution;

11- Lula has never solicited or received undue advantage from Odebrecht or any other company or businessperson; he has never interfered in the opening of lines of credit with BNDES [Brazilian Bank of Economic and Social Development], since it mandatorily involves the intervention of qualified professionals who make collegiate decisions, in addition to compliance with pre-established rules;

12- In view of all these relevant facts accompanying the complaint, we hope that it is promptly dismissed by the Federal Supreme Court, in order to preserve the constitutional order e the state ruled by the law.

Cristiano Zanin Martins and Valeska Teixeira Martins