'Do you want me to go to jail tomorrow?', says Bolsonaro when denying an interview

Former President Jair Bolsonaro (PL) avoided answering journalists' questions on Monday, the 28th, as he left the PL headquarters in Brasília. He claimed that giving interviews could lead to his being placed in pre-trial detention.

“Do you want me to go to jail tomorrow?” , he told reporters. "If your editor can get permission from the Supreme Court for me to speak, I will be happy to speak with you."

The former captain will participate in a motorcycle event in Brasília this Tuesday, the 29th. He stated, however, that he will not be riding a motorcycle that is part of the event.

Understand the measures against Bolsonaro

Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes did not prohibit the former president from giving interviews. However, the content and manner of disseminating them could result in Bolsonaro's pre-trial detention—even before the trial on the attempted coup.

On July 18, Moraes imposed a series of precautionary measures on Bolsonaro , such as the use of an electronic ankle bracelet and a ban on using social media, directly or through third parties .

The original decision received an addition last Monday 21, when the minister highlighted that the veto includes transmissions, retransmissions or broadcasting of audios, videos or transcripts of interviews on third-party networks , “and the person under investigation cannot use these means to circumvent the measure”.

This ruling came just hours after Bolsonaro visited the National Congress, publicly displayed his ankle bracelet, and delivered a speech—later shared on digital platforms. In response, Moraes demanded explanations from the defense regarding the possible violation of the court order, under penalty of preventive detention.

The lawyers, in addition to claiming that the order was not violated, requested clarification on the scope of the precautionary measure. Would Bolsonaro be prohibited from giving interviews?

Moraes' response arrived last Thursday, the 24th. And, while it reaffirms that the former president can speak publicly, it doesn't completely dispel the uncertainty. The minister said:

“At no time was Jair Messias Bolsonaro prohibited from giving interviews or delivering speeches at public or private events, respecting the times established in the restrictive measures.”

Moraes noted, however, that he would not tolerate the use of “subterfuges to maintain the practice of criminal activities, with the instrumentalization of interviews or public speeches as 'prefabricated material' for later posting on the social networks of previously coordinated third parties .”

The caveat directly addresses one of the central focuses of the investigations reported by Moraes in recent years: the so-called digital militias — organized groups that, according to the Supreme Court, threaten democracy and disseminate disinformation in a coordinated manner.

The argument is that it would not be reasonable to allow the use of networks by digital militias and Bolsonaro supporters “previously coordinated to publicize illicit conduct” eventually carried out by the former president, for example, in interviews.

On the fifth of seven pages of his most recent decision, the minister explains in more detail what he would classify as non-compliance with the precautionary measure on the networks:

“In other words, it will be considered a violation of the prohibition (…) the replication of interview content or public or private speeches reiterating the same statements characterizing the criminal offenses that led to the imposition of precautionary measures , so that, subsequently, through 'digital militias', or even political supporters, or even by other investigated parties, in clear coordination, the dissemination of illicit content previously prepared especially to expand disinformation on social networks occurs”.

This practice, he added, would constitute an “illicit instrumentalization” of interviews or speeches with the aim of “maintaining the modus operandi of the illicit actions for which he is being investigated and for which precautionary measures were applied.”

These acts, which led to the restrictions imposed on Bolsonaro, are classified — in theory — as coercion in the course of the process, obstruction of an investigation involving a criminal organization, and an attack on national sovereignty.

Moraes' decision was motivated by a representation from the Federal Police, linked to the investigation into the attempted assassination of licensed federal deputy Eduardo Bolsonaro (PL-SP) in the United States against Brazilian institutions.

One of the main questions concerns the role of "third parties." Moraes isn't referring to people who might have managed Jair Bolsonaro's social media accounts, but rather to anyone who shared, for example, clips from an interview with the former captain—like Eduardo.

For Marcelo Válio, a constitutional law specialist and postdoctoral fellow in law, the minister's addendum is an attempt to emphasize that third parties cannot indirectly commit the crimes that led to the restrictive measures against Bolsonaro. Even so, however, the decision remains difficult to interpret.

“It is a very unclear decision, as is the analysis of a possible subsequent arrest request” , the professor assesses. "Further clarification is needed so that this situation is not just a subjective characterization."

For the lawyer, although the content promoted by Jair and Eduardo Bolsonaro does indeed undermine democracy and national sovereignty, the judiciary's response needs to be clearer and more legally objective. "This decision should be much more precise and not offer a broad interpretation," he concludes. "That is very dangerous."