Colombia’s political world was jolted this week after the National Electoral Council (CNE) finally released its long-awaited ruling on President Gustavo Petro’s 2022 presidential campaign. The historic decision, described by analysts as one of the most consequential in recent electoral history, concludes that Petro’s campaign violated spending caps and received prohibited financing during both the first and second rounds of the election.
According to the CNE’s findings, the campaign exceeded the legal limits by 5.3 billion Colombian pesos (approximately US$1.3M). Of that amount, 3.7 billion pesos (around US$925,000) correspond to overspending in the first round, while the remaining 1.6 billion pesos (about US$400,000) were tied to unreported spending in the runoff.
The ruling has immediate financial consequences. The Petro campaign will face sanctions totaling 5.922 billion pesos, equivalent to roughly US$1.48 million. Beyond the fines, the decision carries major political and legal implications, particularly because of the role played by Ricardo Roa, the campaign manager who now serves as CEO of Ecopetrol, Colombia’s largest state-owned company.
CNE details the violations: overspending and omitted reports
The CNE’s decision outlines several irregularities that go far beyond mere accounting errors. Investigators determined that the campaign not only exceeded the spending limits imposed by Colombian electoral law but also failed to report key expenditures and accepted money from sources that were legally prohibited.
The ruling highlights that the campaign’s financial reports omitted entire categories of spending during the second round. These unreported expenses — totaling the 1.6 billion pesos now under scrutiny — were traced to logistical operations, publicity efforts, and fees associated with mobilizing voters. The omissions, according to the Council, were not minor oversights but significant breaches that affected the transparency of the election’s financial structure.
The finding of forbidden financing is especially damaging. Colombian electoral rules place strict controls on the origins of campaign funding, and the Council concluded that Petro’s team accepted contributions that violated these limits. While details of the specific prohibited sources remain under judicial confidentiality, the Council stated clearly that “illegal financing mechanisms” were identified and documented.
These conclusions place the campaign, and indirectly the president himself, under a harsh spotlight. Although sitting presidents cannot be removed or prosecuted for actions tied to a campaign once in office, the political impact of such a ruling can be severe. This decision is likely to renew debates about Petro’s legitimacy among critics and fuel legal and congressional challenges in the months ahead.
In addition, and as exposed by the news outlet Semana after reviewing the case file, Colombia Humana — the political movement that Petro turned into an official party after winning the presidency — “allowed the entry of financial contributions from prohibited sources for the presidential campaign and directly participated in its funding as a legal entity. These contributions were never reported in the official financial disclosures, actions that facilitated the violation of constitutional and legal provisions governing electoral processes.”
The resolution against the presidential campaign carries major political weight, marking the first time in the country’s history that CNE has imposed financial sanctions on a presidential campaign, let alone one tied to a sitting head of state.
Ricardo Roa at the center of the storm
No figure is more exposed by the CNE ruling than Ricardo Roa, the man who managed Petro’s 2022 presidential bid and who now leads Ecopetrol. As campaign manager, Roa was responsible for reporting all income and expenses, ensuring compliance with spending limits, and maintaining transparent financial records. The Council’s findings directly implicate Roa in the omissions and irregularities that defined the campaign’s financial operations.
Shortly after the ruling was published, Colombia’s Attorney General’s Office confirmed that it will open a criminal investigation into Roa. The inquiries will focus on whether he intentionally concealed campaign payments, misrepresented financial information, or coordinated the use of prohibited funding channels. Depending on the evidence gathered, the charges could range from electoral fraud to falsification of documents or unlawful campaign financing.
If prosecutors determine that Roa played an active role in orchestrating or approving the irregularities, he could face significant legal challenges, both criminal and administrative. This is particularly sensitive given his current position leading Ecopetrol, a role that already places him at the center of political tensions due to Petro’s energy transition agenda.
The scandal not only threatens Roa’s legal standing but also raises questions about Ecopetrol’s governance. Opposition lawmakers have already called for congressional hearings, arguing that a figure under criminal investigation cannot remain at the helm of the country’s most important public company.
What this means for President Gustavo Petro
Although the ruling does not directly accuse President Petro of personal wrongdoing, it inevitably complicates his administration’s political environment. The controversy strikes at the heart of the president’s legitimacy narrative, especially because Petro has long positioned himself as a champion of transparency and ethical governance.
The decision also comes at a delicate moment. Petro is currently pushing for ambitious reforms in health care, labor, and pensions. The opposition is expected to use the CNE ruling as ammunition to slow or block these proposals, arguing that the president’s political capital has been weakened.
Legally, Colombia’s constitution protects sitting presidents from prosecution for campaign-related actions, but the ruling could still influence long-term accountability debates. It may also fuel calls for reforming the financing of political campaigns and strengthening oversight institutions.
For now, Petro’s allies insist that the campaign acted in good faith and that any irregularities were administrative errors rather than intentional violations. But the magnitude of the overspending, the presence of unreported expenses, and the involvement of prohibited funding sources will make that defense difficult to sustain in the public arena.