A British legal firm has stepped into the spotlight to represent President of Colombia Gustavo Petro, deploying its team of lawyers in a high-stakes effort to reverse his inclusion on the United States’ controversial “Clinton List,” a sanctions registry managed by the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC).
What initially was described as a pro-bono defense has turned into a public budgetary debate in Bogota after the Colombian government agreed to pay the firm an estimated US$2.8 million (about 10,000 million Colombian pesos) for its services.
UK firm takes on Petro’s defense
The legal team, operating under the British firm Amadeus Consultancy Limited and linked with American attorney Daniel Martin Kovalik, has been tasked with providing specialized international legal and sanctions counsel as Colombia’s president seeks to challenge his designation on the OFAC sanctions list. The firm’s appointment was formalized through a government contract facilitated by Colombia’s Departamento Administrativo de la Presidencia de la República (DAPRE).
Though details of the contract have not been fully disclosed, public documents and political sources indicate that the agreement amounts to roughly US$2.8 million for expert guidance on navigating sanctions law and advocating for Petro’s removal from the list.
From pro bono to paid representation
The controversy, according to El Colombiano, stems from early statements by Kovalik, widely reported last year, in which he said he would represent Petro “for free” out of personal conviction and belief in Petro’s cause. That initial understanding stood in stark contrast to the later contract negotiated by the Colombian government, which commits public funds to pay the British firm for its work.
Opposition politicians and fiscal watchdogs have seized on the discrepancy. Critics argue that the decision to allocate substantial taxpayer money to a legal campaign perceived as Petro’s personal legal issue — not a direct institutional requirement of the Colombian state — raises concerns about the use of public resources and transparency in government procurement.
“It was said this would be handled pro bono, yet now millions in Colombian pesos are tied up in this contract,” said one opponent, highlighting what they deem a contradiction between earlier promises and the actual financial commitment made by the presidency.
Political and financial fallout
The debate has reverberated across Colombia’s political spectrum, intensifying existing tensions surrounding Petro’s inclusion in the Clinton List, which also affects members of his family and close political allies, including his wife, Veronica Alcocer, and his son, Nicolas Petro, says Spanish outlet El Pais.
Being on the OFAC list can have wide-ranging implications: It restricts access to the U.S. financial system and can complicate bilateral economic cooperation, banking service access, and foreign travel. These sanctions have stirred domestic backlash and calls for diplomatic action to clarify or overturn Washington’s decision.
The Colombian government has responded with formal complaints and diplomatic notes, including a verbal note from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the U.S. government requesting Petro’s exclusion from the sanctions list, arguing that no legal basis exists for his designation.
Public reaction and budget scrutiny
Public and political critics have framed the legal contract’s cost as emblematic of broader concerns about government spending priorities. With Colombia under financial pressures and a declared state of economic emergency, detractors point to the perceived dissonance between fiscal austerity measures and the decision to commit roughly US$2.8 million to defend a sitting president’s personal legal status on an international sanctions list.
Others say that securing seasoned international legal representation is a necessary step given the complexity of OFAC procedures and the potential consequences of Petro’s continued placement on the sanctions list. They argue that specialized counsel could be critical to navigating U.S. law and international diplomacy, even at a notable cost.