Supreme Federal Court President Edson Fachin has denied Justice Luiz Fux immediate access to the complete Fake News Inquiry, arguing that the court must first examine the cases and materials accumulated under the investigation before deciding their final disposition.

Fachin’s position is that disclosure should follow—not precede—the remaining procedural work. The court presidency said it had identified 104 linked procedures, some of which were digitized and still require individual assessment. Fachin wrote that the court intends to complete the pending review and, after the necessary steps, “promote the definitive archiving of the inquiry,” at which point it would provide broad publicity and Fux would receive full access.¹

Fux’s request arose from his review of a challenge brought by the Progressistas party against decisions tied to the investigation into an alleged coup plot. He sought the full records of the Fake News Inquiry and related cases, including sealed materials, before ruling on the challenge. Fux argued that secrecy is meant to protect investigations and those under investigation from third parties—not to prevent review by “the body charged with controlling the validity of the act that initiated it.”²

The accounts agree that the other files requested by Fux are public and can be consulted immediately. They also agree that the Fake News Inquiry itself has not yet been formally closed. One report put the number of linked proceedings at 108 rather than 104, but likewise said access would come only after the review, possible referrals to police and prosecutors, and a final decision on archiving.³

Outside the court, the delay has drawn sharply different interpretations. Commentator Rodrigo Constantino called the inquiry “an instrument of power, not justice” and characterized Fachin’s decision as a tactical retreat.Rodrigo Constantino (Rconstantino)⁴ A reposted message by Allan dos Santos similarly alleged irregularities in how former rapporteur Alexandre de Moraes brought cases under the inquiry; the post did not establish those allegations as findings of the court.Allan Dos Santos (allanconta5)⁵

Fachin, by contrast, has said prior acts remain valid and that information will be released within the limits of legally required secrecy as decisions are made.³