The political landscape in Colombia has been shaken once again after the recovery of digital files seized in 2024 from computers and devices belonging to dissidents under the command of alias Calarca. According to investigators, the materials expose alleged connections between members of the government and dissident structures of FARC, links that, if verified, could significantly undermine public trust and challenge the stability of the Petro administration. At the center of the controversy are two critical questions: Whether the dissidents helped finance President Gustavo Petro’s 2022 campaign, and what role, if any, Vice President Francia Marquez may have played in this alleged dynamic.
Recovered dissident files revive questions about political interference
The claims resurfaced with greater force after statements attributed to alias Ivan Mordisco, commander of the Estado Mayor Central (EMC) and the most influential leader among the FARC dissidents who rejected the 2016 peace agreement. His public remarks, combined with fragments of communications recovered in the seized devices, have fueled a political debate that now extends into Congress, the Attorney General’s Office, and the broader national stage.
The most widely circulated statement came from a message attributed to Ivan Mordisco and signed under the alias “Ivan Lozada.” In that message, he sharply criticized President Petro and suggested that his dissident faction supported Petro during the 2022 campaign. “When we supported him in the campaign, we were not ‘traquetos’ [mafia men]. … He betrayed the people who backed him for his progressive and peace-oriented discourse,” Mordisco said and widespread publicly. Many interpreted this declaration as confirmation that dissident groups provided some form of assistance — political or even financial — to Petro’s presidential bid. The phrase “when we supported him” became the focal point of the political dispute.
President Petro quickly rejected any implication that his campaign received illicit support. He publicly urged security forces to capture Ivan Mordisco alive so that the dissident commander could “clarify what he said” and explain the context behind his accusations, a reaction reported by local newspaper El Colombiano. Shortly afterward, legislators from across the political spectrum asked the Attorney General’s Office to open a formal investigation, arguing that any claim from an illegal armed group about influencing a presidential election requires full transparency, documentation, and legal scrutiny.
Complicating the matter further are the contradictory statements from within the dissident ranks. In an interview reported by Semana, a negotiator for the EMC denied that the group provided any financial support to Petro’s campaign. He explained that although dissident members expressed a “favorable opinion” of Petro in certain communities when residents asked for political guidance, “it is totally false that we supported his campaign with money or logistical resources.”
This version aligns with additional reporting from the news outlet Infobae, which stated that EMC merely suggested to some rural voters that Petro was the “best option,” a recommendation grounded in his promises of peace and rural reform rather than any coordinated attempt to influence the election through illegal means.
The discrepancy between Mordisco’s claims and EMC’s official denials has created a wide gap in the narrative. Some analysts argue that Mordisco may be exaggerating his political influence, while others suspect internal divisions within the group. Regardless of the motive, the allegations have already caused political fallout.
Francia Marquez rejects allegations and responds to the Noticias Caracol report
One of the most sensitive elements emerging from the recovered files concerns Vice President Francia Marquez, whose name reportedly appears in internal conversations among dissident commanders. According to the investigative material, these references raise the possibility that members of her political circle may have been mentioned in discussions about campaign outreach or potential channels of contact.
However, no public evidence — no verified recordings, documents, or financial records — shows that Marquez personally communicated with or received any form of support from dissident factions. At this point, her name appears only within broader political discussions taking place among the dissident leadership.
Mordisco’s criticism of her emerged indirectly in the same message in which he accused Petro of betrayal, implying that senior figures in the government, including Marquez, had abandoned communities expecting advances in peace and dialogue. Although politically charged, these comments do not amount to proof. Nonetheless, because Marquez played a central role in mobilizing grassroots support across rural and marginalized regions, her visibility has placed her at the center of public speculation.
After the report aired by Noticias Caracol, Marquez issued a formal written statement categorically rejecting the allegations. She emphasized that there is no evidence whatsoever connecting her to illegal groups and stressed that the claims rely solely on “a WhatsApp message mentioned by a criminal,” which she described as malicious and unfounded.
Marquez argued that these versions are intended to damage her public image and undermine her political legitimacy. Government officials have strongly dismissed any suggestion of irregularities involving the vice president, emphasizing that she has been one of the administration’s strongest critics of armed groups and has repeatedly condemned their presence and violent impact in Afro-Colombian and Indigenous territories.
The role of Danilo Alvizu and the Carolina Ramirez Front in the emerging scandal
The seized materials also brought attention to Danilo Alvizu, commander of the Carolina Ramirez Front, which operates primarily in the Colombian regions of Putumayo and Caqueta. Alvizu is known inside the dissident structure as a key figure in territorial control and local political messaging.
Much of the digital material recovered during the 2024 operation originated from his network, making him an essential piece in understanding how and why national political figures were referenced in the chats. Alvizu’s front often communicated with alias Calarca’s group, and investigators believe that the internal discussions mentioning public officials may have circulated through these communication channels.
Although there is no verified indication that Alvizu engaged directly with political players, the fact that his operational zone handled strategic messaging gives him a significant role in shaping the narrative that later found its way into national headlines.
As the situation stands, the allegations remain in a gray zone, serious enough to warrant investigation but lacking the concrete evidence needed to confirm wrongdoing. What lends the claims weight is the source: Ivan Mordisco, the country’s most influential dissident commander, and the digital material recovered from his subordinates.
Colombia has weathered numerous political storms, but the possibility — whether real or exaggerated — of dissident involvement in electoral processes opens a troubling precedent. Even if the allegations ultimately prove unfounded, their effect on public trust is already visible.
For Petro and Marquez, the emerging strategy appears to be openness to institutional scrutiny and full cooperation with ongoing inquiries. For the political opposition, this controversy may become a defining issue in the coming years. For the Colombian public, these revelations highlight a deeper, unresolved question: Even after a formal peace agreement, to what extent can illegal armed groups still influence or attempt to influence national politics?