2023-07-18 01:43:44
Although on July 6 it was learned that the Supreme Court of Justice had denied a challenge filed by the son of President Gustavo Petro, Nicolás Petro Burgos, against the Attorney General of the Nation, Francisco Barbosa, this Monday the content of the the determination.
Also read: Nicolás Petro Case: Prosecutor summoned his cousin and an uncle of Day Vásquez to testify
The case is related to the investigation carried out by the accusing body for the alleged irregular financing that the son of the now president would have received during the campaign for the 2022 presidential elections. At the time, the defense of Petro Burgos questioned the impartiality of Barbosa and their prosecutors given the frequent clashes between the prosecutor and the current President.
Given this, in a decision dated July 17 with a presentation by Judge Marjorie Zuñiga Romero, the high court ruled out the challenge, finding it unfounded. Along these lines, he denied that a “serious enmity” could be verified between the president’s son and the prosecutor, but rather between Barbosa and Petro Sr. Even with this enmity, it was noted that it is not necessarily configured as an exhaustive impediment.
“The recusal brief does not mention the existence of a serious enmity of the Attorney General of the Nation with respect to the person being investigated, Nicolás Petro Burgos, but of his father, the President of the Republic, which, it is worth insisting, does not strictly corresponds to the grounds for impediment established exhaustively in the law”, says the determination.
For the Court, the recusal fails to prove “the existence of an enmity, which can be classified as serious” by the prosecutor and that, despite the fact that it supposedly falls directly on the President, it does not have the magnitude to indirectly extend to his child and configured as an impediment.
On the other hand, he defended the independence of the prosecutor and his power to draw up policies and guidelines for the development of the activities of the other officials of the entity. He confirmed that the prosecutor is not in charge of the investigation either, which reflects the principles of transparency, impartiality and objectivity.
“Petro Burgos’ representatives have not been able to prove that the prosecutor had a direct or indirect intervention in the framework of the investigation that would justify the analysis of the conduct, in order to determine if he was involved in the causes of impediments,” he said.
Finally, although the Court gave precedence to the principles of autonomy and independence, it warned that “any vice that undermines” the transparency and impartiality of prosecutor Barbosa “must be analyzed by the competent authority.”
Petro Jr., who is a representative in the Atlantic, is accused of accepting money from former drug traffickers that would have remained in his pockets. The same head of state had considered opening an investigation against Nicolás after the leak of information linking him to receiving illicit money in the middle of the campaign.
Days after the president’s request, Barbosa confirmed that “the Prosecutor’s Office is already investigating for possible money laundering (…) these are the advances made by the investigative groups. There is a presumption of innocence.” In May, the Prosecutor’s Office rejected the challenge, but left the final decision in the hands of the court.
That money, which in the end did not reach Petro’s campaign, would have been delivered by former drug trafficker Samuel Santander Lopesierra, better known as the Marlboro Man, and by Turco Hilsaca, who has been prosecuted for links to former paramilitary chiefs such as Jorge 40 and Mancuso.
#evidence #enmity