THE COMMISSION for Investigation and Accusations of the Chamber became a new battleground for the political crisis, aggravated in the last week by irregularities in the investigations into the former employees of the then chief of staff, Laura Sarabia, as well as by the controversial audios of the former ambassador to Venezuela, Armando Benedetti, speaking about alleged anomalies in the financing of Gustavo Petro’s campaign.
Only last Monday three complaints were filed against the head of state in this legislative cell, after learning of explosive statements by Benedetti, at that time ambassador to Venezuela, who in a conversation with Sarabia expressed annoyance because the government did not give him the importance that he considers deserves. In this context, he said that he raised $15,000 million on the Caribbean coast for the campaign, but warned that “the moment I say who gave the money here on the coast… we’re going to jail!”
One of the complaints in the Accusation Commission was from former presidential candidate Federico Gutiérrez for alleged irregularities in campaign financing.
“Armando Benedetti’s audios are confirming what has been an open secret: that Petro’s electoral success is also due to a pact with politicians and corrupt, and probably drug traffickers.”
Another complaint was filed by Senator Miguel Uribe, from the Democratic Center, who stated that “we are facing the biggest political scandal in history and it only compares with process 8,000.” He considered that “there are indications of a series of crimes that put democracy and the legitimacy of the Government at risk.”
A third complaint before the Commission was filed by the representative Miguel Polo for the audios that correspond to Benedetti, where he reveals that “he collected $15,000 million that he later put into the campaign. This is very serious because we do not know the origin of these resources and the purpose of these resources,” said the parliamentarian.
He added that he added the statements of Day Vázquez, the ex-wife of Nicolás Petro, the son of Gustavo Petro, who said that he “received money from drug traffickers on the Caribbean coast to manage the presidential campaign,” the congressman stressed.
Beforehand there are several investigations in this legislative cell against Petro, at least nine that were transferred from the Supreme Court for reasons of jurisdiction upon assuming the head of state. Some date from when he was mayor of Bogotá.
As head of state, he has been denounced on different occasions before this body, for example, for prevarication for allegedly interfering in the investigations against the ‘Clan del Golfo’, when the president complained to the Prosecutor’s Office because he allegedly did not respond to the complaints of citizens threatened by that group in Magdalena, which would have left nearly 200 homicides.
Complaints against the Prosecutor
The Historical Pact, the base party of the government coalition, is also using the scenario of the House Accusations Commission as part of its political strategy to defend the Gustavo Petro administration.
The bench of this community, where left and alternative forces are wrapped up, announced yesterday at a press conference that they will denounce prosecutor Francisco Barbosa because in the midst of the controversy, for months, with President Petro, according to the Historical Pact ” calls on the police forces to disobedience and insubordination”.
Specifically, the president of the Chamber, David Racero, said that Barbosa Delgado in an interview speaking to the high command of the National Police, pointed out that “not because they give them an order or tell them something, they have to do it.”
Racero emphasized that “this disrespectful and unconstitutional call by Barbosa would lead the director of the Police, the director of the Dijín and the director of the Sijín, to commit two crimes contemplated in the Military Penal Code: article 99 of insubordination and the article 96 of disobedience”.
While Senator María José Pizarro said that “as a Pact we will denounce the prosecutor Francisco Barbosa before the Commission on Accusations of the House of Representatives, for his public pronouncements in which he calls on the Police forces to disobedience and insubordination .
Prosecutor Barbosa has objected to various initiatives by President Petro within the framework of his peace policy, such as the law for the collective submission to justice of high-impact armed groups.
This norm contemplates some benefits to the members of those organizations that avail themselves of justice, such as sentences of between 8 and 10 years. However, the Attorney General has indicated that it would benefit drug traffickers and people convicted of serious crimes who could regain their freedom.
On the other hand, President Petro once demanded that Barbosa inform him of the results of an investigation for threats and crimes of the ‘Clan del Golfo’ in Magdalena, he said that, as head of state, he is also head of the Attorney General .
This affirmation was rejected by the Attorney General and by the high courts, which demanded respect for the separation of powers and the autonomy of the judicial branch.
It is worth remembering that the Historical Pact announced a few days ago that it will go before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights to request precautionary measures against the sanctioning decisions of the Attorney General’s Office against several of its parliamentarians.
President Petro supports the action that the Pact will present, as he recalled that a ruling by this Court asked Colombia to adapt its regulations so that publicly elected officials are sanctioned by a judge. He even indicated that decisions that have been made by the Attorney General’s Office for him, he said, undermine his coalition in Congress are part of a supposed “soft coup.”
The Commission
The Commission for Investigation and Accusations of the Chamber is currently made up of 18 congressmen: Jorge Tamayo and Wilmer Carrillo for the U; Kelyn González, Jorge Cardona and María Lopera for the Liberal Party; Juan Carlos Wills, Wadith Manzur and Daniel Restrepo for the Conservative Party.
They are also Carlos Cuenca for Cambio Radical; Katherine Miranda and Olga Velásquez for Alianza Verde; Hernán Cadavid and Óscar Villamizar for the Democratic Center; Gloria Arizabaleta, Alirio Uribe and Jorge Ocampo for the Historical Pact; William Aljure and Jorge Tovar for the seats of victims.
The government coalition had large majorities in this legislative cell, however, they were diminished by the breakdown of the coalition, which led to the departure of the Conservative and U parties, which declared themselves independent.
At this moment the coalition has the three votes of the Historical Pact, two votes of Alianza Verde and one of the seats of victims.
The opposition has two votes from the Democratic Center, one from Cambio Radical. They would also eventually vote on the side of this bloc in favor of investigating President Petro, the three conservative representatives, one of the victims’ seats.
While it is not clear how the Liberals and the U would vote in this investigation, since the former left the coalition, but they have not defined their position before the Government. That is why the bench is divided.
How is it the procedure?
The Commission of Accusations of the Chamber has among its functions to investigate the President of the Republic, the Attorney General of the Nation and magistrates of the Constitutional Court, Supreme Court of Justice, Council of State and Superior Council of the Judiciary, for criminal reasons or indignity for misconduct.
This legislative cell is criticized for the few results it has delivered in its years of existence. It has more than a thousand processes to be resolved and it does not have the structure to be more efficient, among other things because the parliamentarians that make it up are not dedicated solely to this Commission.
The investigation of a President of the Republic who had the most dedication in this Commission was Ernesto Samper in the 1990s, for the alleged inflow of money from the Cali Cartel to his campaign, which became known as Process 8,000.
In the end, the Commission issued a restraining order due to lack of evidence. For this reason, he considered Samper “neither guilty nor innocent.”
Regarding the processing that is given to the processes, the board of directors of the Commission appoints an investigative congressman, who must carry out the tests he deems necessary. Then he files a report asking to file the process or open a formal investigation.
The investigation does not have a set term. If the investigator presents a request for accusation, the cell makes the respective vote, which, if approved, goes to the plenary session of the Chamber.
Then the plenary of the Chamber votes on the accusatory report, if it is approved it goes to the plenary of the Senate.
In the event that the plenary session of the Senate agrees on this decision, it accuses the president, the prosecutor or the magistrate before the Supreme Court of Justice, the high court that makes the last decision to file or sentence the person.