A recent decision made by A Câmara Municipal de Itu, situated in the interior of São Paulo, has led to the loss of mandate for the councilman Moacir Cova (Podemos). The judgment was announced on Saturday (22), through the Legislative Decree No. 703/2026, following a cassation process initiated against him.
According to the decree, the loss of mandate was founded on article 17, clause II of the Municipality’s Organic Law, alongside article 7, clause III of the Decree-Law No. 201/1967. The declaration highlights that the decision results from behavior deemed incompatible with parliamentary decorum.
The political-administrative process addressed an event recorded on April 6, 2026, during a police operation in the Residencial Potiguara, located in Itu. Cova, who also serves as a civil police officer, was part of the operation, which encountered resistance and involved attack from dogs.
An operational report revealed that during this encounter, the councilman discharged his firearm toward the ground. The commission acknowledged that his reaction to the dogs was justified, dismissing allegations related to shooting at animals, animal cruelty, failure to assist, and causing physical or psychological harm. It was noted that no person or animal was injured due to the gunshot.
However, the commission validated another aspect of the accusations regarding Cova’s actions during the police intervention. The report disclosed that the councilman admitted to threatening Caíque Reginaldo Gomes with his firearm, declaring he would shoot his leg if he advanced. This behavior was deemed unwarranted for controlling the situation, particularly as the event unfolded in a populated area with civilians and children nearby.
Analyzing the Conduct of Moacir Cova
The operational report distinguished the act of shooting at the ground from the behavior viewed as incompatible with the parliamentary standard. The commission concluded that while the functional duties justified a police intervention and the use of force against the animal attack, they did not encompass the threat posed to Gomes.
During the proceedings, Cova’s defense contended that his actions were performed in his capacity as a police officer, asserting that the intervention and weapon use were both necessary and proportional. They argued that one could not legitimately invoke a breach of decorum for actions undertaken while fulfilling functional responsibilities.
Despite these defenses, the Commission Processante dismissed the arguments. Their report indicated that performing as both a civil police officer and a councilman does not grant immunity against political-administrative scrutiny of conduct. Although the functional mandate allowed police intervention, it did not extend to actions seen as outside operational protocols.
The commission also rejected claims of procedural irregularities within the case. Their report detailed a court’s directive to hold an additional hearing to listen to a witness, which was completed as mandated. This hearing took place on August 10, involving the defense, audiovisual recording, and subsequent submission of final claims.
Ultimately, the Commission Processante reaffirmed its earlier position, recommending the cassation of Moacir Cova’s mandate. The report stipulated that the action would be subject to a nominal vote requiring a two-thirds majority from the council members.
Following the council’s approval, the decision was formalized in Legislative Decree No. 703, signed by the president of the municipal Chamber, Alcides Beluci Neto. The decree specifies that the loss of mandate takes effect upon its publication.
Reactions to the Cassation
Post-cassation, Moacir Cova released a statement on his social media channels asserting that his termination was not due to corruption, embezzlement, or any other misconduct, but was instead linked to his oversight endeavors. He expressed his feelings through the following statement:
“Dia triste! Fui cassado pelos vereadores da Câmara de Itu.
Meu erro não foi corrupção.
Não foi funcionário fantasma.
Não foi crime ambiental.
Não foi desvio de dinheiro público.
Meu erro foi fiscalizar.
Foi questionar.
Foi cobrar explicações.
Foi não me calar diante daquilo que entendia estar errado.
Fiscalizar o dinheiro público não deveria ser motivo para cassação. Deveria ser obrigação de todo vereador.
Hoje, tiraram o meu mandato. Mas não conseguem cassar a minha consciência, a minha coragem e o meu compromisso com a população.
O mandato pode acabar. A luta não.
E se fiscalizar incomoda, eu continuarei incomodando.
Itu merece respeito. Itu merece transparência. Itu merece vereadores que fiscalizem.
Esse pronunciamento destaca a essencialidade do papel fiscalizador de um vereador, suscitando discussões sobre a veracidade das alegações que levaram à sua cassação.