Lawfare in Brazil: Bolsonaro’s Conviction and the Crisis of Judicial Credibility
In a stunning and controversial decision, Brazil’s Supreme Court voted 4-1 last week to convict former President Jair Bolsonaro of leading a conspiracy to overthrow the government of his successor, Luiz Inácio “Lula” da Silva. The ruling sentenced Bolsonaro to 27 years in prison—a verdict that has ignited fierce debate across Brazil and beyond. While some view the decision as a triumph of accountability, others see it as a troubling example of “lawfare,” where legal systems are weaponized for political ends.
What Is Lawfare?
The term “lawfare” refers to the strategic use of legal mechanisms to achieve political objectives. It’s a concept that has gained traction in Latin America, where judicial systems are often entangled with political power. Critics argue that lawfare undermines democratic institutions by eroding the impartiality of the courts and turning legal proceedings into tools of political retribution.
In Bolsonaro’s case, the concern is that the Supreme Court bypassed lower courts and fast-tracked the trial in Brasília, raising questions about due process and judicial neutrality. For many Brazilians—both supporters and critics of Bolsonaro—the process itself has become as controversial as the verdict.
The Charges and the Trial
Bolsonaro was accused of orchestrating efforts to delegitimize the 2022 presidential election and incite unrest against the incoming Lula administration. The prosecution presented evidence of inflammatory speeches, social media posts, and alleged coordination with military and political allies to challenge the election results.
While the charges were serious, the trial’s conduct has drawn scrutiny. Legal experts and civil society groups have questioned the decision to skip lower courts and bring the case directly to the Supreme Court. This move, they argue, sets a dangerous precedent and fuels perceptions of judicial bias.
A Politicized Judiciary?
Brazil’s Supreme Court has long been viewed with skepticism by segments of the population. Accusations of politicization are not new, but Bolsonaro’s conviction has intensified the debate. Critics argue that the court’s composition and rulings often reflect ideological leanings, particularly favoring the left.
Supporters of Bolsonaro see the verdict as part of a broader campaign to silence dissent and eliminate political rivals. They point to the court’s aggressive stance against conservative figures and its alignment with Lula’s administration as evidence of partiality.
Even some who oppose Bolsonaro’s politics have expressed discomfort with the trial’s handling. They worry that the erosion of judicial norms could backfire, weakening the very institutions meant to uphold democracy.
The Impact on Brazilian Democracy
The implications of Bolsonaro’s conviction extend far beyond his personal fate. Brazil is now grappling with a fundamental question: Can its democracy survive if its legal institutions are perceived as tools of political warfare?
Trust in the judiciary is essential for democratic stability. When courts are seen as biased or politically motivated, public confidence erodes, and polarization deepens. In Brazil, where political divisions are already intense, the perception of lawfare threatens to inflame tensions and destabilize governance.
The case also raises concerns about the balance of power. If the judiciary can bypass procedural norms to target political figures, what safeguards exist to prevent abuse? And how can citizens be assured that justice is being served, rather than manipulated?
A Pattern in Latin America?
Bolsonaro’s case is not an isolated incident. Across Latin America, former presidents and political leaders have faced legal challenges that critics describe as lawfare. From Ecuador to Argentina, the line between accountability and political persecution has often blurred.
These cases highlight the fragility of democratic institutions in the region. While corruption and abuse of power must be addressed, the means of doing so must be transparent, fair, and consistent with the rule of law. Otherwise, the cure risks becoming worse than the disease.
A Call for Reform
The controversy surrounding Bolsonaro’s conviction underscores the urgent need for judicial reform in Brazil. Strengthening the independence and transparency of the courts is essential to restoring public trust and safeguarding democracy.
Reforms could include clearer guidelines for judicial procedures, greater oversight of prosecutorial decisions, and mechanisms to prevent political interference. Civil society, legal scholars, and international organizations all have a role to play in advocating for these changes.
Final Reflections
Jair Bolsonaro’s 27-year sentence marks a dramatic chapter in Brazil’s political history. Whether viewed as justice served or lawfare in action, the case has exposed deep fissures in the country’s legal and political systems.
For Brazil to move forward, it must confront these challenges head-on. That means ensuring that justice is not only done—but seen to be done. It means protecting the rule of law from the corrosive influence of partisanship. And it means building institutions that serve the people, not political agendas.
Only then can Brazil truly claim to be a democracy that respects both accountability and fairness.