One of the individuals linked to a high-profile graft case, Antonio Cabral, was offered the role of an ordinary witness, not a state witness, according to his legal counsel.

In a statement, Cabral’s lawyer clarified that prosecutors did not extend an offer granting state witness status, which typically includes immunity from prosecution in exchange for testimony. Instead, Cabral was only asked to testify as a regular witness—meaning he remains exposed to possible criminal liability.

Legal experts note that the distinction is significant. A state witness is formally discharged from criminal responsibility under strict legal conditions, while an ordinary witness receives no such protection and may still face charges depending on the outcome of the case.

The clarification comes amid public discussion surrounding plea arrangements and cooperation agreements in graft and corruption cases. Cabral’s camp stressed that without formal state witness protection, any decision to testify carries substantial legal risk.

Prosecutors have not disputed the characterization, maintaining that decisions on witness status depend on evidence strength, necessity of testimony, and compliance with legal standards set by the courts.

Observers point out that the development underscores a recurring reality in high-profile cases: cooperation is not automatically rewarded with immunity, and courts retain final authority over who qualifies as a state witness.

As proceedings continue, the issue highlights the careful balance between encouraging truthful testimony and upholding accountability.

In court, labels matter—and so do protections.