The latest controversy between Abelardo De la Espriella and Paloma Valencia erupted over a specific accusation: the alleged support of the lawyer and current independent presidential candidate for the “Yes” vote in the 2016 peace plebiscite.
Valencia, presidential candidate for the Democratic Center party—the most visible voice opposing the agreement with the FARC—questioned her rival’s consistency by suggesting that he had once backed an initiative he now criticizes. The claim quickly escalated and became a direct point of confrontation between the two.
De la Espriella responded swiftly and flatly denied having voted in favor of the agreement promoted during the government of Juan Manuel Santos, the architect of the deal. He stated that he had always opposed the terms negotiated with the guerrilla group and accused Valencia of distorting his position for electoral purposes.
The clash exposed not only a dispute over a specific fact, but also a broader battle for credibility and, especially, for control of the right-wing space just over three weeks before the first round of elections that will determine which of the two right-wing candidates will face the pro-government candidate Ivan Cepeda in June.
Related: Controversy in Colombia Over Valencia–Noboa Talks and Tariff Cuts.
Colombian election: De la Espriella and Valencia clash over 2016 peace deal
Valencia’s accusation came amid an increasingly polarized political environment within the Colombian right, which is competing to reach the second round in elections that will shape the country’s immediate future.
According to Senator Valencia, there are past records and public positions suggesting that De la Espriella was not consistent in his rejection of the agreement with the FARC during the plebiscite. Although she did not present conclusive evidence at the time, her statement was enough to raise doubts in the public debate.
De la Espriella, for his part, described the accusation as false and malicious. He insisted that his stance toward the agreement has been critical from the outset and that he never supported the “Yes” vote. He also announced that if Valencia is able to prove her claims, he would withdraw his presidential candidacy.
“I led the vote for No and voted no in the plebiscite, while you voted yes. I have opposed Petro for four years, and I have had the results to stop him from Colombia, while you were living in Italy,” candidate Valencia wrote, to which De la Espriella responded, “let the people decide who they believe more; there are only 26 days left to find out. In the meantime, I propose this: if you prove that I voted ‘yes’ to the farce of the FARC and the Santos government, I will withdraw from the race.”
Respetada Paloma:
Dejemos que la gente decida a quién le cree más; faltan solo 26 días para saberlo. Mientras tanto, te propongo esto: si pruebas que voté “sí” al esperpento de las FARC y el gobierno Santos, me retiro de la contienda; y, si ocurre lo contrario —es decir, si… https://t.co/QuuQsbQK5K
— Abelardo De La Espriella (@ABDELAESPRIELLA) May 5, 2026
The far-right candidate lamented that this type of attack reflects the fragmentation of the conservative sector and the lack of a shared agenda. In his response, he sought not only to refute Valencia but also to reaffirm his political identity before voters who distrust any concession to a peace process that, despite the ten years that have passed, remains a political argument within the Colombian right.
Beyond the verifiable facts, the controversy has had an immediate effect: reigniting the debate over who most faithfully represents opposition to the agreement signed with the FARC, which, despite everything, remains a law in force. In that arena, historical consistency has become a political asset, and any doubt about the past can erode the trust of an electorate particularly sensitive to this issue.
A plebiscite that marked a fracture and that today is an electoral weapon
To understand the weight of this discussion, it is necessary to go back to 2016, when the government of Juan Manuel Santos decided to submit the peace agreement reached with the FARC to a popular vote after several years of negotiations in Havana. The plebiscite was presented as a mechanism to democratically ratify the pact aimed at ending more than half a century of armed conflict.
The campaign leading up to the vote was marked by intense polarization. The “Yes,” backed by the government and broad sectors of the international community, defended the agreement as a historic opportunity to end the war. The “No,” led mainly by former president Alvaro Uribe, conservative sectors, and evangelical groups, questioned key aspects such as the political participation of former combatants, the transitional justice system, and the penalties contemplated for those responsible for crimes.
The result surprised the country. Contrary to most polls, the “No” prevailed by a very narrow margin, reflecting a deeply divided society. The victory of the rejection forced the government to renegotiate some points of the agreement with the guerrilla group, incorporating proposals from opposition sectors. The new text was later approved by Congress without being submitted to a new popular vote.
Since then, the plebiscite has remained a milestone that reshapes alliances and narratives in Colombian politics. For conservative sectors, having been on the side of the “No” became a marker of identity and continues to serve as a political argument, despite the time that has passed and the fact that the agreement is now law.
What is clear is that the controversy between De la Espriella and Valencia, on this point as well, seeks to position one or the other candidate as the genuine reference of a right wing that, despite its divisions, still has a chance to block a potential second left-wing administration, this time represented by Ivan Cepeda, in a runoff that polls suggest is tightening.