Leonardo Pantaleão on Augusto Melo expulsion, next council steps | OneFootball

On the night of last Monday (1), Corinthians’ Deliberative Council approved Augusto Melo’s removal from the club’s membership rolls. After the session, Deliberative Council president Leonardo Pantaleão gave an interview and detailed how the trial proceeded, the appeals filed by the former president’s defense, and the next steps in the ongoing proceedings.

Initially, Pantaleão explained how the appeals presented by Augusto Melo’s defense were analyzed and detailed the procedure that culminated in the approval of the Ethics Committee’s opinion.

Photo: Reproduction / Central do Timão

“Augusto’s defense presented some objections on appeal regarding certain irregularities they believed occurred during the course of the procedure. These are more technical issues, even involving articles of the club statute and so on. This was countered by the representative of the Ethics Committee, councilor Rodrigo Bittar, who made those arguments, and it was then submitted to the plenary.

Then the appeal arguments were not accepted and, as a second step, since the appeal was rejected, the trial of the Ethics Committee’s opinion began, which recommended removal from the membership rolls. And that opinion also, after half an hour granted to both sides, both the Ethics Committee and the defense, was approved by a wide majority in favor of following the Ethics Committee’s recommendation and imposing the penalty of removal from the membership rolls on Augusto,” he added.

Asked about the possibility of the case being taken to court after the Deliberative Council’s decision, the official said that this is a right of any party that feels harmed.

“Whenever there is a difference in interpretation, the party that feels harmed has every right to challenge it in other spheres, including in court. So that is something we have no control over; there is no way for us to question it or even minimize the importance they attach to it. I think it is their right. If they believe they should take it to court, without a doubt, that is a possibility.”

Next, Pantaleão commented on the other proceedings underway in the Deliberative Council and explained the need to guarantee full rights of defense to those involved.

“I’ll be honest with you, Daniel: I would rather postpone this if necessary, but ensure the right of defense for everyone, because the right of defense is unquestionable, than simply rush to judgment. So today, for example, we had a request made by councilor Maria Ângela involving a personal matter. The plenary decided by majority to hold hers over until next week. And the councilor who would come next, according to the order in the call notice, objected to having his trial moved ahead of hers. So, consequently, there was a suspension.

Now, if there is, as there certainly will be, a need to set new dates, we will set new dates so that we can complete all the trials in the manner provided for by the Statute, without any problem. The issue of the existence of the General Assembly is clearly something that cannot simply be changed. None of that. But special attention will have to be given to it. Even if, afterward, the General Assembly also resumes this agenda so that these trials that need to be concluded can be completed.

It is a sad situation that I’m sure no Corinthians supporter expected to go through. But these are situations that ended up happening and had to be faced. So, of course, far be it from me to be happy about a situation like this, but it was important to move these matters forward, and that is what was done.

Now the plenary of the Deliberative Council is making decisions as cases arise and complete their course through the Ethics Committee itself. Other cases will also soon be put on the agenda so that we can bring forward the Ethics Committee’s opinion regarding other names, not just former presidents.We had cases, for example, stuck in Ethics since 2022. So it’s absurd. All of these cases need to move forward so that we can reach an outcome and organize this situation.”

The official also commented on a legal action related to the General Assembly scheduled for the coming days and reiterated his understanding of the matter.

“It’s another one of those situations where I say: we have no control over it. Councilors have the right, if they wish, to challenge or contest it. There is a difference in interpretation, and that has to be respected. I already made my understanding clear when I drafted the notice calling the Assembly. I understand that both the general aspects and the separate motions need to be submitted to the Assembly because it is the sovereign body.

But I greatly respect anyone who may think otherwise. And again, discussing it in court, seeking an outside third party’s analysis, as in the case of the Judiciary, is a right. There is no way to prevent it. Now we will wait for the court’s decision.”

Another topic addressed was the impeachment request against president Osmar Stábile. Pantaleão explained what stage the process is currently at.

“What I heard, in fact, was an admissibility review by the Ethics Committee. So the Ethics Committee analyzed it and understood that there are elements that allow that request made by some councilors and some members to proceed. President Osmar was informed today of the 10-day deadline, based on the statute, that he has to present his defense. From there, it goes back to the Ethics Committee with his defense so that the Ethics Committee can prepare an opinion and then bring that opinion to the Deliberative Council.”

Asked about the situation of former officials who left the club’s membership rolls, such as Duílio Monteiro Alves, Pantaleão said the matter is still being analyzed legally.

“This is a situation we are analyzing. In fact, we were just talking about this subject a little while ago. We will have to analyze it to determine what to do, especially because it creates a certain margin for questioning. Imagine, for example, applying any penalty whatsoever, let’s say, either removal or even a warning, if that were the case. How would you possibly warn or remove someone who is no longer part of the membership rolls? So all of this is being analyzed so that we can find the best legal basis to achieve what was intended by the ethical procedure itself.”

Finally, the president of the Deliberative Council explained how the participation of councilors who will still be judged in upcoming sessions will work.

“In fact, voting on one’s own case may not be appropriate, as also did not happen here today. But they may, yes, take part in the vote on other councilors who are subject to trial, as also happened here today. So there is no kind of impediment to that,” he concluded.

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