Story
Oct 23, 2026
Lula Says Lulinha Will Face Investigators as Rivals Press Allegations
Lula presented cooperation with investigators as proof that no relative would be shielded, while critics argued that the questions surrounding his son require broader transparency and sharper scrutiny.
President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva defended his son, Fábio Luís Lula da Silva, known as Lulinha, during a Band debate after Senator Flávio Bolsonaro raised questions about allegations involving the son and an investigation into improper deductions from pension benefits.
Lula’s response was framed around non-interference. He said Lulinha had opened his bank information and phone to investigators, adding: “In my world, nobody hides.” He said that, if required, his son would give testimony and face the justice system rather than receive protection because of family ties.1 Lulinha denies wrongdoing, according to the report.
The confrontation also turned into a dispute over the independence of the investigation. Lula referred to Supreme Court Justice André Mendonça, who is handling inquiries involving Lulinha, and argued that any suspected irregularity should be investigated regardless of the person involved. The report said Flávio Bolsonaro had questioned Lulinha’s alleged connection to lobbyist Roberta Luchsinger, who has made claims about meetings with government ministers; Lulinha’s defense has rejected the allegations.2
Critics on the right treated Lula’s assurances as insufficient. Commentator Rodrigo Constantino asked on X: “Lula, Flávio does not need to accept the challenge: his secrecy has already been broken. How about you now break the secrecy of the Lula Institute, Janja and Lulinha?”
3 In another post, he accused Lula of trying to shift the INSS controversy onto Flávio Bolsonaro.
4
The two sides therefore agree that the matter belongs before investigators, but diverge sharply on what cooperation and disclosure should look like. Lula’s position is that Lulinha has already made himself available to authorities; his critics say the episode warrants additional public transparency.