I think I should explain this to other readers:
It is quite difficult to condemn powerful and influent people. A very simple example to americans is Al Capone. He was a gang boss, that only managed to get convicted for tax evasion.
Likewise, Lula was condemned for receiving an apartment from a contractor in exchange for illegal favors, rather than for direct involvement in the major corruption scandals. He appealed to no avail. Guilty as charged. Later on though, after he went to jail for quite some time, the Supreme Court declared there were two problems here: (1) Lula should have been judged elsewhere, in another court, given their interpretation of the law. And (2) the first judge was partial, rather than impartial to the point he actually helped the accusatory team (I don't know how it is called in the USA). For those reasons the judgment was nullified, and since there is a specific time limit to restart the whole process, Lula can no longer be judged for that crime. There is however no shadow of doubt he is guilty, the proofs are solid and never considered weak by the courts.
In other words, if you vale truth there is a quite significant reason to want Lula to be condemned.