A Troubling Dinner in Brasília: The Last Supper Before Elections
By Hotspotnews
In the quiet of a private residence belonging to Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva recently shared a three-hour dinner with Senate President Davi Alcolumbre and fellow Justice Cristiano Zanin. For many conservatives watching the scene unfold, the gathering carried an unmistakable biblical echo: it looked like the Last Supper before the elections.
The official explanation was straightforward enough. The meal was meant to mend fences after months of tension that erupted when the Senate rejected Lula’s nominee for the Supreme Court, Jorge Messias. Rather than leave the institutional friction to open negotiation, the executive turned to two sitting justices to broker a private reconciliation. One of those justices, Zanin, previously served as Lula’s personal lawyer. The other, Moraes, has long been a polarizing figure whose expansive use of judicial power has drawn sharp criticism for overreach into free speech, political opposition, and legislative affairs.
In a healthy constitutional republic, the three branches of government operate with clear boundaries. Judges interpret the law; they do not mediate political disputes between the president and the leader of the Senate over dinner at a justice’s home. When the executive and judiciary dine together to smooth over a legislative defeat—just months before the country heads to the polls—the appearance of improper influence becomes impossible to ignore.
Conservative Brazilians have watched with growing concern as the Supreme Court has assumed an ever-larger political role. Decisions that restrict political speech, intervene in electoral matters, and target opponents of the current government have already eroded public trust. A private meeting of this nature only deepens that distrust. It suggests that institutional friction is resolved not through open debate and democratic process, but through closed-door arrangements among allies at a decisive moment in the political calendar.
Alcolumbre’s response when asked about the dinner—“secret”—only reinforces the problem. Citizens deserve transparency when the highest levels of the executive and judicial branches meet to discuss the relationship between the presidency and the Senate. Secrecy in such settings, so close to an election, invites the suspicion that deals are being cut beyond the reach of public scrutiny and legislative oversight.
Brazil’s institutions are strongest when each branch respects its proper limits. A dinner that blurs those lines, however well-intentioned its participants claim it to be, sets a dangerous precedent. Conservatives rightly insist that the judiciary remain independent of the executive’s political agenda, and that the Senate retain its constitutional independence without quiet mediation from the bench. When that principle is set aside in the final stretch before voters go to the polls, the separation of powers risks becoming little more than a polite fiction—one easily discarded when political convenience demands it.