Álvaro Uribe has reiterated his statements about the existence of a “setup” against him in the witness bribery case, for which he will face an upcoming trial. In a recent statement, Uribe attacked Senator Iván Cepeda, implicating him in alleged donations to one of the witnesses in the case.
According to Uribe, Senator Cepeda would have contributed financially to the NGO for the Defense of Political Prisoners, which would have delivered 12 million Colombian pesos (equivalent to approximately 3,000 US dollars) to the family of the main witness against him, Juan Guillermo Monsalve, who was convicted of kidnapping and other serious crimes. Uribe maintains that Monsalve is a false witness against him.
Assembly test series:
1. Illegal interceptions on my phone. pic.twitter.com/cIKdJtGT41
— Álvaro Uribe Vélez (@AlvaroUribeVel) April 14, 2024
The Prosecutor’s Office announced last week that Uribe will face trial for the crimes of bribery of witnesses in criminal proceedings and procedural fraud. The case dates back to 2012, when Uribe sued Cepeda for alleged witness tampering, after Cepeda prepared a complaint in Congress over the former president’s alleged links to paramilitarism. However, the Supreme Court of Justice decided not to open an investigation against Cepeda and instead initiated proceedings against Uribe for witness tampering.
The bribery accusations are related to the alleged payment of bribes to Carlos Enrique Vélez and Juan Guillermo Monsalve, who are serving sentences in Colombian prisons.
Uribe has expressed outrage at the accusations, suggesting that it is a politically motivated case lacking substantial evidence against him. On his social media accounts, he posted a series of what he calls “proof of the setup,” including allegations of illegal interceptions of his phone.
The former president has denounced the lack of significant judicial progress in his defense, pointing out the declaration of expiration of the disciplinary action in favor of the analyst of the interceptions by the Prosecutor’s Office, as well as the lack of action against the magistrates who ordered the interceptions.
This case continues to be the subject of attention and debate in Colombia, highlighting its complexity and political implications.