Federal Court Dismisses Improbity Case Against Jair Bolsonaro and Wal do Açaí
Judge rules insufficient evidence exists regarding ghost employee allegations in the former president's office.
1Case Dismissal Ruling
The Federal Court of Brasília has officially extinguished the administrative improbity lawsuit against former president Jair Bolsonaro and his former aide, Walderice Santos da Conceição. Judge Rodrigo Godoy Mendes issued the decision on November 5, 2026, citing a lack of sufficient evidence to substantiate the allegations of ghost employment within the Chamber of Deputies.
2Origins of Investigation
The investigation stemmed from a 2018 report revealing that Walderice, known as Wal do Açaí, worked at an açaí shop near Bolsonaro's vacation home while officially serving as a parliamentary secretary. The Federal Public Ministry had sought full restitution of approximately 280,273 Brazilian reais, alleging she performed no actual legislative duties during her fifteen-year tenure.
3Judicial Reasoning Provided
Judge Mendes argued that parliamentary appointments do not require physical presence at the Brasília headquarters, as staff can operate within a representative's home state. The court found no clear proof of fictitious appointments, illicit financial transfers, or misappropriation of public funds, noting that cash withdrawals were consistent with subsistence needs in underbanked regions.
4Legal Standards Applied
The ruling emphasized that under current Supreme Federal Court (STF) precedents, proving administrative improbity requires concrete evidence of all statutory elements. The judge concluded that the prosecution failed to demonstrate any illicit sharing of remuneration or specific injury to public coffers, rendering the continuation of the legal proceedings legally unsustainable at this stage.
5Employment History Details
Official Chamber of Deputies records indicate that Walderice underwent twenty-six position changes within the cabinet over fifteen years. Between 2011 and 2012, she received twenty-five grade advancements. Despite these records, local residents previously claimed she provided private services at Bolsonaro's residence, a claim the former president defended as monitoring local regional issues.
6Bolsonaro's Previous Defense
When the allegations first surfaced, Bolsonaro stated that Walderice reported regional problems to him or his chief of staff. He denied she had a constant, fixed schedule, describing her role as someone who reads newspapers and monitors local events. The court accepted this lack of formal structure as insufficient for criminal conviction.
7Prosecution's Next Steps
Although the Federal Court has dismissed the current action, the Federal Public Ministry retains the legal right to appeal the decision. The prosecution had initially argued that the financial movements were atypical and demanded the return of funds, but the court found these arguments lacked the necessary evidentiary weight to proceed further.
8Broader Legal Context
This decision marks a significant development in the long-standing investigation into Bolsonaro's parliamentary conduct. By setting a high bar for proving administrative improbity, the ruling highlights the complexities of verifying remote parliamentary work. The case remains a notable example of how judicial scrutiny interacts with political appointments and public oversight mechanisms.