“It is important that the Rapporteur’s deputy, Guilherme Delight, has withdrawn from the new opinion he presented on the anti-criminal bill sent by President Lula to the National Assembly. He has withdrawn the proposals that weaken the federal police’s actions against organized crime and threaten national sovereignty. It is also important that the Rapporteur has maintained the proposals that are central to the government’s project,” Gleici said on social media.
At the end of the afternoon, São Paulo’s official security chief released the third version of a document that does not equate crimes committed by sectarian groups with crimes committed by terrorist groups. Mr Delight proposed creating a new crime category within the so-called “Legal Framework for Combating Organized Crime”. The changes are intended to reduce resistance from government supporters and allow the proposal to be approved by the full House of Commons.
“The Ministry of Justice will now carry out a more detailed analysis of the documents to guide the government’s position. Our aim is to combat organized crime and guarantee the right to security of the public,” Gleici said. National Secretary for Legislative Affairs Marivaldo Pereira also viewed the new changes positively, but noted that there were still problems with the wording.
-It is a major victory for the government to maintain the PF’s authority and eliminate comparisons with terrorism. However, this report still leaves many questions unanswered. Let’s take a closer look at the analysis.
The new version of the anti-faction bill, drafted by the federal government and reported by Delight, retains federal police powers over organized crime investigations and eliminates equating the actions of criminal factions with those of terrorist groups. This was foreseen in two previous documents, but was withdrawn by the rapporteur on Tuesday of this week following strong criticism from the Ministry of Justice, federal police and public security experts.
The first version of the project required any “joint or coordinated” federal law enforcement action to be “provocation by a state governor.”
Delight later softened this part in another essay, making the PF’s actions subject to “communication with the competent state authorities” or “upon a reasonable request from the state police chief or the state prosecutor’s office,” but this was still considered problematic. All these excerpts have been removed by the reporter in the new version of the project.
Within the government, the change in the attributes of the PF provoked a strong reaction from ministers such as Gleij Hoffmann, who argued that the change was a “safe act” for crime. A video published on official government networks called Delight’s changes “anti-investigative PL” and issued a warning calling for a defense of the PF’s mission. “While the new document proposes that the federal police can only act against criminal factions upon provocation from the governor, in practice this means restricting the actions of the PF as soon as crime spreads across the country,” he said. “Who would be interested in hindering the PF’s actions? Who would be interested in making it harder to fight factions?” the publication concludes.
However, Mr Delight labeled this interpretation as “incorrect”, but acknowledged that he intended to make changes to the proposal to bring greater clarity to the issue.
— opened the door to the creation of a false narrative that I am undermining PF, which is not true. If the problem lies in the contradiction between PF powers and national sovereignty, we are discussing it. Let’s toughen up the writing, I won’t give it up—Delight said. — We provide a legal framework to fight organized crime in Brazil.
About The Author
