The Brazilian Bar Association asked the Supreme Court on Wednesday to bar Prosecutor-General Paulo Gonet from acting in a proceeding concerning text messages between Justice Alexandre de Moraes and banker Daniel Vorcaro, citing a potential conflict of interest as the court reviews the case.
The Federal Council of the Brazilian Bar Association, known as the OAB, formally requested that Prosecutor-General Paulo Gonet step aside from personal participation in PET nº 16.662/DF before the Supreme Court. The proceeding centers on police reports containing records of interactions between Justice Alexandre de Moraes and Daniel Vorcaro, of Banco Master.
The decision to file the request followed an extraordinary meeting in Brasília involving the national leadership and the presidents of all 27 state bar sections. While the OAB emphasized that the filing does not imply any conclusion regarding Gonet’s conduct, the organization argued that his continued personal involvement creates a procedural overlap.
Institutional Position and the Conflict Claim
The rationale behind the bar association’s petition rests on a distinct procedural contradiction. The Procuradoria-Geral da República has already taken a stance within the same proceeding by arguing for the nullity of the initial police determination and the evidence derived from it. At the same time, the prosecutor-general was summoned by court leadership to provide direct clarifications regarding the broader institutional crisis.
Because Gonet was ordered by court leadership to explain aspects of the prosecutor’s office’s external control over police activities, the bar association contends he cannot simultaneously function as an objective legal fiscal in the court’s collegial review of those exact matters.
The measure has a strictly procedural and preventive character. It does not presuppose a judgment on the conduct of the Prosecutor-General of the Republic nor does it imply a restriction on the institutional attributions of the Public Ministry. It merely seeks to avoid the overlap, in the same complex of facts, between the position of the one called personally to provide clarifications and the function of an intervening body before the Court. Federal Council of the OAB, via Estadao
Despite requesting Gonet’s recusal from personal action on the file, the OAB made clear that the prosecution service itself should remain represented in the dossier by Gonet’s legal substitute, preserving the agency’s institutional presence while removing its head from the disputed active review.
Document Access and Investigation Requests
Alongside the recusal motion, the bar association submitted requests for comprehensive access to the proofs, reports, and restricted documents gathered by the Supreme Court presidency under certain petitions. The OAB also asked for formal investigations to be opened to examine potential criminal violations tied to the documented material without regard for the official positions of any involved authorities.
National OAB President José Alberto Simonetti noted that the organization has chosen not to pursue immediate official dismissals or legislative impeachment steps at this stage, citing an absence of sufficient foundational elements.
We currently lack elements that would lead us to suggest or support a request for impeachment in the Federal Senate. José Alberto Simonetti, President of the National OAB, via Times Brasil
To evaluate the gathered material thoroughly, the OAB established a specialized commission comprising members of the national directorate and state bar presidents. This group will review the documents under appropriate legal protections and draft an institutional opinion on the conduct of the figures involved.
The Police Report and Legal Backdrop
The underlying controversy stems from a federal police report that surfaced after Justice André Mendonça lifted confidentiality restrictions on the material. Investigators examined communications in which Vorcaro allegedly discussed methods to halt Operation Compliance Zero, including references querying whether a resolution could be achieved through specific figures.
The documentation also details contacts involving the prosecutor-general, some coordinated through an intermediary lawyer. While the presence of references in police documents does not establish wrongdoing, and Gonet has denied any professional, financial, or contractual tie to the banker, the disclosures prompted widespread institutional friction.
Before the bar association filed its petition, the prosecutor-general moved to have the police report dismissed, arguing that it had been initiated unlawfully. Supreme Court President Edson Fachin subsequently suspended the procedural movement of PET nº 16.662/DF while consolidating related investigative fronts under his office.
Next Steps in the Supreme Court
The immediate focus turns to the Supreme Court’s plenary schedule. Justice Fachin has convened an extraordinary plenary session for September 15 at 10:00 a.m. to review the referral decision made by Justice Mendonça concerning the disputed messages and police records.
The court will evaluate the validity of the investigative material during that session, while the newly formed bar association commission begins examining the broader documentary record to determine whether further institutional actions or petitions are warranted.
