In a document, the Lula government says that Wallace is a bad example, a bad athlete and should be reprimanded

by

The representations of the AGU (Advocacia-Geral da União) against the volleyball player Wallace Leandro de Souza, who made a poll on social networks questioning whether someone would “shoot in the face” of President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (PT), claim that he “is not only a bad example, he is a bad athlete, who must be reprimanded by the entire sporting community”.

The requests for punishment of the athlete made by the body, which legally represents the government, to the COB (Brazilian Olympic Committee) and to the CBV (Brazilian Volleyball Confederation) were obtained by Sheet. The request to the AGU was made by the Minister of Sports, former volleyball player Ana Moser, and by the Chief Minister of the Social Communication Secretariat, Paulo Pimenta.

In the documents forwarded to the COB and the CBV, the AGU says that Wallace’s conduct constitutes incitement to crime and “is not covered by freedom of expression, as no one is authorized to commit a crime invoking this fundamental freedom”.

“The behavior of the athlete represented here is even more abject, since athletes, due to their public exposure, conform and reproduce attitudes of their admirers, most often children and adolescents who wish to practice sports activities and fulfill the dream of becoming an athlete of renown”, says the AGU.

The sports community “strongly repudiates similar hateful practices,” it said.

The documents were forwarded to the COB and the CBV last Wednesday (1st). To the Olympic Committee, the Lula government asks for “exemplary punishment” of the athlete. The AGU’s request calls for an administrative proceeding to be opened against Wallace, in addition to “a fine and banishment from Olympic sport”.

The CBV is asked to apply the penalties of written censure, fine and suspension to the athlete. These fines can reach up to R$ 100,000.

The documents are signed by Rogério Telles Correia das Neves, Deputy Director of the Department of Extrajudicial Affairs at AGU, and by André Augusto Dantas Motta Amaral, General Counsel of the Union.

The COB even filed a lawsuit with the Ethics Council to investigate the player’s conduct during the episode. The measure, however, was not taken in response to the AGU measure, which intends to enter as a third party in the process.

On the day the case gained repercussions, the Committee’s leadership met with the compliance area and, according to those present at the meeting, decided on representation within minutes.

The entity’s assessment is that the case is more serious than previous manifestations by the player himself, openly defender of former president Jair Bolsonaro (PL), but which did not lead to an investigation into the conduct. Wallace, for example, has already appeared in posts favorable to Bolsonaro with the former athlete and now federal deputy, Maurício Souza (PL-MG).

The understanding is that the Olympic champion, this time, did not simply pronounce a political preference, which would be admitted, but advanced to a terrain where there may even be criminal conviction.

In this sense, the episode also differs, according to members of the Committee, from that involving beach volleyball player Carol Solberg, who criticized Bolsonaro during a post-match interview.

In this case, even though she only expressed a political preference, her conduct was investigated because she disrespected the rules of the competition in which she was participating at the time.

Wallace is an athlete from Sada Cruzeiro, who removed the player indefinitely after the publication and demanded that he recant and apologize.

In the publication, he took a photo with a 12-gauge gun and then opened a poll asking if someone would shoot the president in the face with it.

After the repercussion of the case, the player said he made a mistake. “I made a mistake and I’m here apologizing because when you make a mistake, there’s no way around it, you have to accept the mistake and apologize,” he said.

The representation of the AGU against the athlete raised controversy regarding the role of the body as a legal representative of the Brazilian State.

For Gustavo da Rocha Schmidt, a professor at FGV Direito Rio, AGU “extrapolated its competencies”.

In his view, although Wallace has “exceeded all acceptable limits”, the person who should trigger the bodies against the athlete is a private lawyer for the president, and not the AGU.

“The role of the AGU is that of a State body, which is the defense of the interests of the federal Union, and not the defense of the ruler on duty, whoever he may be”, he says.

“In the Bolsonaro government, at various times, the AGU went beyond its role in the sense of doing personal advocacy on behalf of Mr. Jair Bolsonaro. The question remains: is the AGU doing personal defense for Mr. Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and not for the Union or the Brazilian State?”, he questioned.

Sought, the AGU claims that its action is legally supported, that “the facts that gave rise to the representations show that there was incitement to commit a crime against the life of the President of the Republic” and that the athlete’s conduct was serious.

“Art. 22 of Law No. 9,028, of April 12, 1995, establishes that it is incumbent upon the AGU to act in defense of holders and members of the Powers of the Republic, ‘including promoting private criminal proceedings or representing before the Public Ministry, when victims of crime'”, says the agency, in a note.

“The performance of the AGU is, therefore, supported both in the aforementioned legislation and in its institutional duty of representing the Union”, he adds.

“AGU understands that threats to holders of Powers represent threats to republican institutions. The Advocacy General will not shy away from fulfilling its institutional role of defending the democratic rule of law and the authorities of Powers in the free and regular exercise of their attributions.”

You May Also Like

Recommended for you