Concern over legal uncertainty for investments in Brazil after the Supreme Court upheld the suspension of X

The Brazilian Supreme Court on Monday upheld a decision by one of its judges to suspend X, alleging judicial defaults by the platform owned by billionaire Elon Musk.

Access to X, formerly Twitter, became unavailable via the website and mobile app early Saturday morning, hours after the block ordered by Judge Alexandre de Moraes of the Supreme Federal Court (STF).

The five magistrates of a chamber of the STF, including Moraes, voted in virtual session in support of the measure.

"Elon Musk demonstrated total disrespect for Brazilian sovereignty and, in particular, the judiciary, by placing himself as a true supranational entity and immune to the laws of each country," Moraes said in endorsing his decision, as reported by AFP.

Meanwhile, the decision by Brazilian authorities is beginning to worry investors. Hedge fund billionaire Bill Ackman explained that the ruling will likely drive away private investment.

"China committed similar acts that led to capital flight and collapsing valuations. The same will happen to Brazil unless it quickly retracts these illegal acts," Ackman argued in a message posted on the social network.

In this regard, an article by international political analyst Anderson Riverol, published in RealPolitik, explained that the closure of X in Brazil has consequences because it will affect entrepreneurs in the country, but above all it raises doubts about the ability of institutions in the country to function and the legal security of entrepreneurs.

"The closure of X in Brazil has significant consequences, especially in the economic sphere, as it hurts small entrepreneurs in the vast Brazilian territory. In addition, doubts grow about the probity of the institutions, their democratic values and their true intentions in limiting the right of individuals to be informed by the media of their choice," said Riverol.

In that sense, he added that "this measure comes across as arbitrary, using state institutions to coerce people in disputes that may be considered of little relevance to the common citizen. As these actions proceed, the credibility of the institutions is increasingly compromised."