Colombia’s Attorney General’s Office announced this week that it will formally file charges against Ricardo Roa, the current president of Ecopetrol, on two counts related to alleged irregularities committed while serving as manager of Gustavo Petro’s 2022 presidential campaign. The situation reopens the debate over transparency in the handling of political campaign funds and the conduct of high-ranking public officials.
The charges, brought after months of investigations, accuse Ricardo Roa of violating campaign spending limits during the current president’s campaign four years ago and of alleged influence peddling linked to personal business dealings with a contractor who later obtained contracts related to the state oil company.
In a country where judicial proceedings against public figures tend to spark intense political debate, the attorney general’s decision has implications beyond Ricardo Roa’s specific case.
The charges placed, at the center of the discussion, the responsibility of corporate executives who move from political roles into top positions in state entities, as well as the effectiveness of Colombia’s campaign finance oversight mechanisms. Amid announcements of hearings and requests for suspension from office, the legal and political landscape facing Roa has become even more complex.
Colombia charges Ecopetrol chief Ricardo Roa over alleged crimes in Petro’s 2022 campaign
The first of the scheduled charges concerns the alleged crime of violating electoral spending limits, an area closely monitored under Colombian law to limit the impact of money in political contests.
According to the Attorney General’s Office, the “Petro Presidente” campaign — managed in 2022 by Roa as campaign manager — exceeded the legal funding limits established by law, constituting an electoral violation with potential criminal consequences for those who led it.
These irregularities had already been sanctioned by the National Electoral Council (CNE), which fined the campaign team for exceeding spending caps by millions of pesos. Still, the Attorney General’s Office has decided to take the case to criminal court.
The hearing for the charge related to exceeding spending limits is scheduled for March 12 before a Municipal Criminal Judge with Oversight Functions in Bogota, as determined by the Paloquemao Judicial Services Center in the Colombian capital.
In the charging document, the Attorney General’s Office says that Roa, in his capacity as campaign manager, had “direct responsibility” for the administration of resources and for the decisions that led to the alleged breach of the legal framework.
Campaign spending caps are intended to prevent disproportionate financial advantages and ensure fair competition. Exceeding them can entail administrative sanctions and, in serious cases, criminal consequences if intent or willful evasion of the law is proven.
In the Colombian context, where campaign finance rules have been strengthened following past corruption scandals, this case represents one of the strictest measures in recent years to send a message that no one is above the law.
Influence peddling and the apartment case
The second legal front Roa faces is alleged influence peddling. According to the prosecution’s investigation, the executive allegedly favored a contractor identified as Juan Guillermo Mancera in a relationship that also involved the purchase of a high-value apartment in Bogota.
The Attorney General’s Office says that there may have been an exchange of benefits: The contractor was allegedly later awarded contracts related to Ecopetrol following a real estate transaction in which Roa acquired the property.
“This case is related to the issue of influence peddling in favor of Mr. Juan Guillermo Mancera, who was favored with a contract from Ecopetrol and who had previously participated in a business transaction with Mr. Ricardo Roa in the sale of an apartment that you all already know about,” prosecutor Gonzalez said.
This hearing is scheduled for March 11, one day before the charge related to exceeding electoral spending limits, reflecting the prosecution’s strategy of moving forward with both proceedings consecutively.
The charge of influence peddling refers to the possible use of a position and contacts within a public entity to obtain personal benefits or benefits for third parties, something Colombian law punishes severely when abuse of office is proven.
Although no pretrial detention measure has been ordered against him at this time — meaning Roa retains his freedom and his position — the mere filing of charges could trigger significant political and corporate effects.
In its hearing requests, the Attorney General’s Office has not sought such a measure, a factor that so far leaves open the possibility that Roa may remain at the helm of Ecopetrol as the judicial process moves forward.
A campaign under scrutiny, four years later
The alleged irregularities in the 2022 “Petro Presidente” campaign remain under scrutiny by Colombian authorities in a process that has continued to this day and keeps political debate open in the country. The investigations focus primarily on the possible violation of electoral financing limits and the origin of certain contributions that allegedly entered the campaign.
CNE opened preliminary inquiries following complaints from the opposition alleging inconsistencies in reported income and expenditures. Among the issues under review are contributions from individuals and companies, as well as the role of intermediaries who, according to the complaints, may have channeled funds without due transparency.
The Attorney General’s Office has also assessed information related to possible crimes such as irregular financing or document falsification.
From the governing coalition, they have defended the legality of the campaign, and officials have asserted that all financial movements were reported in accordance with current regulations.
President Gustavo Petro has argued that the accusations are part of a strategy of political persecution and has called for the investigations to move forward swiftly to dispel doubts.
Over the past three years, authorities have gathered evidence, requested accounting documentation, and heard testimony from the campaign’s financial officers.
Although no final decisions have been issued, the case could have significant political and legal implications, both for leaders of the Historic Pact and for the president himself, depending on the scope of the findings.