By Camilo Diniz
The government of Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (Workers' Party, PT) is refusing to release the documents behind two of its biggest campaign-season announcements: Desenrola 3.0 and the nationwide ban on betting houses. BBC News Brasil revealed the refusal, and the account Meio Independente (@meioindep) on X amplified it, describing the case as secrecy imposed on the "goodies packages" promised during the campaign.
What the government is refusing to release
According to BBC News Brasil, the government is using the Access to Information Law (LAI) to deny the release of studies, legal opinions and reports that supported the provisional measures. Those measures created Desenrola 3.0, the latest version of the government's household-debt program, and banned fixed-odds betting houses (the "bets") across the country.
In response to two requests from the BBC's reporters, the Casa Civil, the presidential chief of staff's office, argued that the documents are covered by attorney-client privilege, because they were allegedly used to provide legal advice to the government.
Measures announced on the eve of the election
On September 25, the government announced Desenrola 3.0 and the ban on bets nationwide. Both were issued as provisional measures (medidas provisórias), executive orders with the force of law that take effect immediately and then go to Congress for a vote.
According to the BBC, Lula was then in a tight first-round race against Flávio Bolsonaro of the Liberal Party (PL), from Rio de Janeiro state, who was a candidate at the time. Lula was also facing resistance from part of the electorate over high household debt, attributed to high interest rates and to debts tied to betting. The opposition called the package a "package of goodies" (pacote de bondades) and criticized it as electioneering, because of the possible costs to public coffers.
Experts: "eternal secrecy"
The BBC notes that the 2011 decree regulating the LAI provides for access to preparatory documents used after the decision that precedes laws and provisional measures. It also says that in previous years it obtained preparatory documents behind decrees signed by the then-president.
Bruno Morassutti, co-founder and advocacy director of the NGO Fiquem Sabendo, said the government's argument creates a serious problem: "What is being done creates eternal secrecy. We will never find out, for example, the technical reasons that led the government to ban the bets, and this creates room for rumors and disinformation." The experts consulted by the BBC call the move illegal.
In a statement, the Casa Civil said: "Access to legal opinions is protected by professional secrecy and stems from legal guarantees applicable to the practice of law, including within public administration." The Planalto Palace, the president's office, did not answer the questions the BBC sent.
The outlet Diário do Poder also picked up the story. It said Lula is hiding the "studies" that supposedly back his electoral promises and raised the suspicion that they do not exist. That is the outlet's suspicion, not a proven fact.
Why it matters
Provisional measures let a Brazilian president change policy overnight, and Congress votes only afterward. The technical studies behind such decisions are therefore one of the few ways the public can judge their basis and cost. The dispute here is whether the government can classify those documents as legal advice, which would shield them indefinitely, or whether the transparency law requires them to be opened.
What comes next
The provisional measures are still before Congress, and the opposition is expected to use the episode to demand transparency and question the cost of the programs. It remains to be seen whether the government will keep the documents secret or be forced to release them through administrative appeals or the courts.
VDD Analysis
A government that announces multibillion-reais measures in the middle of a campaign and then refuses to show the studies that justify them fuels distrust on its own. Transparency is not a favor from the government. It is an obligation of those who manage public money, and taxpayers have the right to know the technical basis for decisions that may weigh on their pockets.
