Non Sequitur in Brazilian justice?

Hi!
I do not know if the matter is of your knowledge, but in Brazil there is a great debate about the illegalities committed between the judge and prosecutors of the republic in an operation (car wash) that was aimed at fighting corruption. A great Brazilian jurist (Lenio Strecker) summed up the main argument in favor of the defenders of the operation:

"In summary, it is said that (i) in Brazil there is no institutional figure of the investigating judge, and that, (ii) in the countries where there is, the judge who participates in the investigation is not the one who judges the case and gives sentence. From these premises, it follows that (iii) there is nothing wrong with the dialogues, published by Intercept Brasil (newspaper), between the Judge Sérgio Moro and the attorney of the republic Deltan Dallagnol - insofar as there is no pre-trial court, there would be no problem in assumption that the trial judge himself 'controls investigations'."

It seemed to me that the main fallacy of the argument is non sequitur. However, the premises also seem to contradict the conclusion. How would you rate the fallacy(s) and why?

This is more of a legal question than one of fallacious reasoning. It certainly seems contradictory on the surface, but one would have to read Intercept Brazil 's published dialogues between Judge Sérgio Moro and the attorney of the republic Deltan Dallagnol to have a better understanding of the judge's ruling, and even then it would fall under legal questions than logical.

As Oliver Wendall Holmes once wrote: “The life of the law has not been logic: it has been experience.”