The First Chamber of Brazil’s Supreme Federal Court (STF) voted unanimously on August 18, 2026 to accept a criminal complaint filed by the Prosecutor General’s Office (PGR) against federal deputy Gilvan da Federal (PL‑ES). The deputy is accused of injúria—a legal term covering insult and defamation—during a April 8, 2025 meeting of the Chamber’s Public Security and Organized Crime Combat Committee.
In his remarks, Gilvan referred to President Lula as an "ex‑convict untouched by sentence," a "partner in crime," and a "disgrace." He then said, "I want Lula dead more than anything; I want him to go to the fifth circle of hell. That is my right. I will not say I will go kill him, but I want him dead, I want him to go to the fifth circle of hell, because even the devil does not want Lula. May he have a heart attack." The statements were captured on video and later shared on the deputy’s social media profiles.
The PGR argued that the comments went beyond legitimate political critique and constituted personal attacks unconnected to the committee’s deliberations. Relator Minister Cármen Lúcia stated that parliamentary immunity protects expressions linked to the performance of legislative duties, but Gilvan’s speech had no relation to the topic under discussion and was intended solely to offend the president. Ministers Alexandre de Moraes and Flávio Dino joined her vote; Minister Cristiano Zanin recused himself due to a conflict of interest.
Gilvan defended himself by invoking parliamentary immunity, claiming the remarks were made in a heated debate after provocation by a government ally. He also noted that the Chamber’s Ethics Committee had reviewed the incident and archived the complaint, which he characterized as an internal congressional decision.
The ruling means Gilvan will now face a criminal trial before the STF. If convicted, he could lose his mandate and face penalties ranging from a fine to imprisonment, depending on the final judgment.
The case highlights the tension between free speech protections for lawmakers and the limits imposed when speech targets public officials with personal vilification rather than policy debate.