Stabile’s council summons compared to 2011 Andrés Sanchez case | OneFootball

The call for an extraordinary meeting of the Corinthians Deliberative Council (CD) by President Osmar Stabile, scheduled for this Monday (23), has reopened an old debate within the club about the statutory limits for convening the body and the existence, or not, of precedents that authorize the measure.

Behind the scenes, allies of the current management began citing an episode that occurred in 2011, during the presidency of Andrés Sanchez, as justification to support the legality of the notice published in 2026. The comparison, however, is contested by councilors and members of the club's internal bodies, who point out significant differences between the two cases, both in the procedure adopted and in the context that motivated the calls.

Central do Timão accessed documents, court decisions, and records from the time and prepared a comparative analysis between the two calls, highlighting the points of statutory divergence and the political circumstances that involved each episode. Check out the details of the case below.

On the evening of last Wednesday (18), Osmar Stabile published a notice calling for an extraordinary meeting of the Deliberative Council, with the first call at 6 PM and the second at 7 PM, at the club's theater. On the agenda, there is deliberation on the precautionary removal of the council's president, Romeu Tuma Júnior, in addition to the generic item "Various."

In the notice, the board justified the call by stating that the measure would be necessary to preserve the integrity of the ongoing disciplinary procedure, ensure the freedom of witness testimony, guarantee the serenity of the instruction, and safeguard the club's institutional image, as well as regularize the statutory reform procedure. Osmar Stabile based the call on Article 112 of the Statute, which deals with the president's competencies, to justify the convening of the body.

Despite the justification presented, councilors interviewed by the report consider the call formally irregular. The main argument is that Article 82 of the Statute stipulates that extraordinary meetings of the Deliberative Council must be convened by the president of the body itself, even if the request is made by the board president, the CORI, the Fiscal Council, or by at least 50 councilors.

The provision establishes that, in these cases, it is up to the president of the Council to make the call within a maximum period of 30 days after receiving the formal request. Another point raised is that the removal was scheduled before the instruction of the disciplinary procedure initiated in the Ethics and Discipline Commission, which is still in the preliminary phase and without formal notification to the president of the CD.

The president of the Ethics Commission, Leonardo Pantaleão, stated in a note that he had no prior knowledge of the notice and pointed out formal irregularity in the call. According to him, the non-compliance with the statutory procedure compromises the validity of any deliberation. Tuma also officially expressed that the notice published by the board violates the Statute and has no legal validity, an understanding that was later reiterated in a joint statement by the Council presidency.

The CD's Justice Commission also positioned itself against the call, and there was also a note from the São Paulo Public Prosecutor's Office about possible administrative irregularity and the risk of judicial intervention in the club. Even in the face of the challenges, Stabile maintained the call.

Board allies cite 2011 precedent

Behind the scenes, councilors in favor of the measure argue that the call would have support in a precedent that occurred in November 2011, when the then club president Andrés Sanchez directly called an extraordinary meeting of the Council to deliberate on statutory changes related to the body's electoral system.

At the time, the change was considered urgent because the elections for the Deliberative Council were scheduled for February 2012, which required prior approval of changes to the Statute and subsequent deliberation in the General Assembly.

In the notice published on November 9, 2011, Sanchez recorded that he had formally requested the call to the president of the Council months before, as provided by the statute. The document also mentioned a request signed by more than 50 councilors and previous deliberations by the CORI, the CD, and the board recognizing the need for the changes.

According to the notice, even in the face of these requests, the then president of the Deliberative Council, Carlos João Eduardo Senger, did not make the call within the stipulated period. Faced with inaction and the proximity of the electoral calendar, the board decided to directly call the extraordinary meeting, citing urgency and institutional necessity.

The case went to court, but the merits were not analyzed

The 2011 call was legally contested by the then president of the Deliberative Council and the body itself, who filed a precautionary action with a request for an injunction to suspend the extraordinary meeting, alleging formal defects and disrespect for the club's statutory norms.

The court, however, denied the injunction request and dismissed the case without analyzing the merits. In the decision, the judge understood that there was no demonstrated risk of irreparable harm with the meeting's realization and highlighted that any irregularity could be discussed later in its own action. The magistrate also pointed out that the precautionary measure was not the appropriate procedural instrument to prevent the assembly from taking place, which is why he did not grant the immediate suspension of the meeting.

In practice, the decision did not declare the call valid, merely recognizing the absence of urgency that would justify judicial intervention at that time. For councilors interviewed by the report, this point is essential in the comparison with the current case, as the Judiciary did not recognize the legality of the 2011 call, having only refrained from suspending the meeting, without analyzing whether the act was in accordance with the Statute.

Differences between 2011 and 2026 are pointed out by councilors

Councilors opposed to the current call argue that the comparison between the two episodes is not sustainable from a statutory point of view, as in 2011, there were prior formal requests, participation from other club bodies, and a record of an attempt to observe the procedure provided in Article 82 of the Statute before adopting an exceptional measure by the board presidency.

In the current situation, there is no record of a formal request directed to the president of the Deliberative Council, and the call was made directly by the president, without the formal participation of the CD and without observing the statutory procedure provided for the body's convening.

Another highlighted point is the nature of the topic on the agenda. In 2011, the meeting dealt with a statutory amendment with a direct impact on the club's electoral process. In 2026, the main item is the precautionary removal of the president of the Deliberative Council, a measure that, according to critics of the call, has no express provision in the Statute and was included in the agenda even before the instruction phase of the disciplinary procedure in the Ethics Commission. In this group's assessment, the initiative violates due legal process, harming the right to a broad defense and the adversarial system, guarantees ensured by the Federal Constitution.

It is also emphasized that, so far, the president of the Council has not been formally notified about the said disciplinary procedure, which reinforces the argument that the process would not yet be regularly constituted.

With the meeting maintained by the presidency, the dispute over the validity of the notice and the limits of the club's powers is expected to remain at the center of the political crisis at Corinthians. The internal assessment is that, as happened nearly fifteen years ago, any deliberation made under these conditions may again be challenged in court.

See more:

Corinthians News

This article was translated into English by Artificial Intelligence. You can read the original version in 🇧🇷 here.