The Attorney General’s Office (AGU) defended in the Federal Court of Brasília the dismissal of a lawsuit for administrative improbability filed by the Public Ministry against President Jair Bolsonaro. The case concerns the hiring, when he was a deputy, of Wal do Açaí, an alleged ghost employee.
The AGU is using the misconduct law amendment passed by Congress and signed by the president himself to defend the dismissal of the action.
According to the AGU, the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office was unable to prove any illegal acts by the President and Walderice Santos da Conceição, who served as Parliamentary Secretary to the Cabinet of then Deputy Jair Bolsonaro in the Chamber of Deputies of 2003 to 2018.
According to the deputy, in more than 15 years as an entrepreneur in the Chamber, she has never been to Brasilia and she should sign in the federal capital.
MP files complaint against Bolsonaro and Wal do Açaí for administrative irregularity
The AGU came to the defense of Bolsonaro and Wal do Açaí. According to the Advocacy, they triggered the AGU on the grounds that the law provides for the measure because the facts were committed while they were domestic.
In 2018, the prosecution opened an investigation into the hiring of the alleged ghost employee. TV Globo had access to excerpts of his testimony before prosecutors in November of the same year. This is one of the evidence used in the administrative improbability action against Bolsonaro.
At the time, Wal do Açaí received a salary of 1,400 reais from the Chamber of Deputies. She left office in 2018, after the first complaints.
The former parliamentary adviser lives in Angra dos Reis, on the south coast of Rio de Janeiro, a city where the Bolsonaro family has a summer residence.
He earned the nickname Wal do Açaí, the same name as the shop where he worked in the historic village of Mambucaba, Angra district, as shown in the photos attached to the action. The store was across the street from Bolsonaro’s home.
The former adviser told investigators that she and Bolsonaro became close and developed a friendship.
After the testimony, the prosecutors gave Wal do Açaí’s defense a deadline to provide documents likely to prove the provision of service, such as the telephone record, but no evidence was provided.
In 2020, the breach of bank secrecy showed that Wal do Açaí withdrew almost 84% of the salary he received over the 15 years: more than R$238,000. The looting was fragmented, which prosecutors say may indicate an attempt to circumvent oversight bodies.
The prosecution claims that, in practice, Wal do Açaí provided Bolsonaro with private services, tending to the house and the dogs, with the help of her husband.
The Federal Prosecutor’s Office said Bolsonaro falsely attested, through a time sheet, to Wal do Açaí’s presence in Brasilia to allow the payment of wages.
According to prosecutors, there was illicit enrichment by both Bolsonaro and Wal do Acaí. From now on, Justice will notify the two so that they can come forward on the charge of administrative dishonesty.
Bolsonaro claims former adviser Wal do Açaí was never in Brasilia
The AGU told the court that the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office had not identified the conduct attributed to President Walderice da Conceição.
The new law on dishonesty, sanctioned by Bolsonaro, now provides that it is necessary to prove the intention to commit the irregularities in order to convict for the act of dishonesty.
” The rejection [da ação de improbidade]therefore, it is the only alternative compatible with the rules currently in force in the Brazilian legal system”, argued the Attorney General.
The AGU says the MPF accusations “are no more than inferences drawn from common sense knowledge.”
“It happens when this subject is brought up, like Parquet [Ministério Público] he only endeavors to bring alleged proofs in favor of his theses when he speaks of the educational level of the defendant Walderice, of her knowledge of computers, etc. “.
The plea asserts that the fact that Wal do Açaí has never been to Brasilia has no legal value because it is only a “legal indifferent”, since the rules in force expressly authorize the provision of services in the state of the representative (in this case Rio de Janeiro).