Carmen Lúcia sends a lawyer to testify to the CPI and rejects an appeal against coercive driving | Covid’s CPI

Tolentino’s testimony is scheduled for this Tuesday (14). He is appointed as a “hidden partner” of the FIB Bank – a company that offered a guarantee letter of R$ 80.7 million in a contract signed between Need Medicines and the Ministry of Health for the purchase of the Covaxin vaccine.

Tolentino’s defense obtained in the STF a decision by Carmen Lucia that allows him to refuse to answer questions that could possibly incriminate him.

The CPI, through the Advocacy of the Senate, obtained authorization from Judge Francisco Codevila, of the 15th Federal Court of Justice in Brasília, so that Tolentino is coercively conducted if he does not appear (video below).

Covid's CPI asks the Supreme Court for the coercive conduct of lawyer Marconny Albernaz de Faria

Covid’s CPI asks the Supreme Court for the coercive conduct of lawyer Marconny Albernaz de Faria

According to the magistrate, every witness has an obligation to appear to testify and that the witness’ attitude of “not communicating to the CPI the reason that led to their absence on the date for which they were previously summoned to testify, proved to be evasive and unjustified” .

After the decision, the defense returned to sue the STF. The lawyers asked that Tolentino not be forced to appear at the commission and that the decision for coercive conduct be overturned.

Carmen Lucia denied both requests. According to the minister, the defense did not present any new facts and pointed out the lawyer’s reluctant behavior in refusing to appear at the CPI.

According to the minister, “as for the patient’s duty to appear to testify before the Parliamentary Inquiry Commission, I noted that there was no legal basis for accepting the claim”.

“The insistence without a legal basis to comply with the obligation imposed on it and the reiteration of questions does not innovate the request, does not confer a reason where it has no shelter, does not release the patient from attending calls made based on current legislation. Rather, it is an act of undue recalcitrance due to non-compliance with the call made by the Parliamentary Inquiry Commission”, he wrote.

The minister stated that the appeal against coercive conduct must be filed in the appropriate court, and the Supreme Court is not responsible for analyzing the case now, under the risk of suppression by other judicial instances.