Justice Flávio Dino of the Supreme Federal Court defended his colleague Alexandre de Moraes' handling of the so-called fake news inquiry, which has been proceeding for more than seven years under his reporting. On social media, Dino questioned the validity of a Court member "promising" the end of an investigation, without directly mentioning Supreme Court President Edson Fachin, who days earlier had spoken out in favor of concluding the investigation. Dino's defense comes amid a public rift at the court, also involving Justice André Mendonça.
Legal experts consulted by GLOBO point out that it is difficult to establish concrete time limits for criminal investigations, but warn that the indefinite extension of inquiries may open space for scope drift and arbitrariness. This is precisely the argument used by the opposition and by part of the Supreme Court's own justices, who consider there to be a misuse of power in the investigation conducted by Moraes since 2019.
The Federal Constitution itself establishes, in general terms and without setting a deadline, that those under investigation have the right to a reasonable duration of proceedings. This concept, however, depends on case-by-case interpretation, which generates legal uncertainty. The absence of a defined temporal framework allows investigations to be extended indefinitely, often changing in scope over time.
The fake news inquiry is pointed out as an example of this situation, having accumulated different targets and scope over the years. The central issue under debate is to what extent the continuation of an investigation without a determined deadline may compromise fundamental guarantees of those under investigation and generate risks of authority abuse.
