Brazilian local media reported Tuesday that the country’s top prosecutors have requested an investigation into President Dilma Rousseff over alleged connections to the Petrobras corruption scandal. Though Rousseff has spoken against the accusations and threatened legal action, prosecutors claim that she attempted to obstruct [Reuters report] the investigation of those involved in the oil firm corruption scandal. The president spoke [Reuters report] on the probe Wednesday, saying that the call for investigation was based on lies told by former Workers Party Senator Delcidio do Amaral. Rousseff is currently facing impeachment proceedings over allegations of violating budgetary laws and is awaiting [JURIST report] a vote by the upper house on whether an impeachment trial will be held.
Brazil’s political establishment has been in turmoil as many powerful politicians including former presidents have been recently brought to the center of embarrassing corruption investigations. In April the Supreme Court of Brazil ruled [JURIST report] that it will take over the corruption probe against former president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva instead of returning the case to federal Judge Serio Moro. In March a judge for the Brazilian Supreme Court upheld a ruling [JURIST report] blocking the former president from taking a ministry post. Also in March, Brazil’s Supreme Court unanimously authorized [JURIST report] the corruption charges against member of Congress Eduardo Cunha to proceed. Eduardo Cunha was implicated in the Petrobras scandal. Rousseff herself has been implicated in that very same scandal and has been at the center of impeachment proceedings [JURIST report] for months. She spoke against the accusations against her earlier this week, stating that she will take legal action against the senator who made statements against her for defamation. More than 100 individuals and 50 politicians have been arrested in connection to the Petrobras scandal.
Opinions expressed in JURIST Commentary are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of JURIST's editors, staff, donors or the University of Pittsburgh.