By Indianara Goz
A group allied with Gilmar Mendes, the dean (longest-serving justice) of Brazil's Supreme Federal Court (STF), is working on a new strategy to take rulings on the investigation of the former Banco Master out of the court's 2nd Panel. The plan is to bring the case to the full court and, in doing so, open the way to annul decisions already made in the proceedings.
Behind the scenes, tensions are high. While the Supreme Court tries to keep order internally, part of the bench is preparing to reopen a dispute that has divided the justices in recent months.
A new Federal Police report is the bet
The plan depends on a document that the Federal Police (PF), Brazil's national police force, is expected to produce. The previous report already named justices Nunes Marques, Alexandre de Moraes and Dias Toffoli. According to the reporting, the new one should mention André Mendonça and Luiz Fux.
The central point is this: a mere mention of names is not evidence of a crime. Even so, the strategy is to use those references to widen the reach of suspicions inside the court itself. In practice, the goal is to erode trust among the justices and make it untenable for certain rulings to remain with the 2nd Panel.
A divided court over who runs the Banco Master case
André Mendonça remains the formal rapporteur (lead justice) on the case. Even so, part of the proceedings is under the provisional management of STF president Edson Fachin because of internal disagreements.
On October 29, Fachin returned Operation Sem Desconto, which investigates fraud at the National Social Security Institute (INSS), to Mendonça's control. The proceedings of Operation Compliance Zero, which investigates Banco Master, stayed under the court presidency's management. The decision kept the original rapporteur but removed a significant part of the case files from Mendonça.
Why it matters: one case, many pieces
The Banco Master case is not a single proceeding. It brings together petitions, inquiries and procedures with different subjects. For that reason, taking one question to the full court does not mean all the files follow the same path. This fragmentation is precisely what allows selective transfers, and that is where the risk lies: whoever controls how the pieces are distributed controls the pace and outcome of the investigation.
The point for readers is straightforward. A court that needs an internal fight to decide who judges what comes to depend on backroom maneuvering, and not only on the letter of the law. That weighs on the court's credibility with those following the case closely.
The next step is the Federal Police report. If it names Mendonça and Fux, as Gilmar Mendes's allies intend to exploit, the dispute over who judges Banco Master is likely to gain a new chapter, and the full court may be called on to decide what the 2nd Panel could not resolve on its own.
VDD Analysis
When a dispute over a case of this size migrates from the case files to the court's corridors, citizens lose sight of what is essential: the transparency and predictability of decisions. Investigations cannot become bargaining chips in internal clashes. The Supreme Court must answer to society with clear rules for distributing cases, and without using reports as ammunition against colleagues.
