The National Judicial Disciplinary Commission of Colombia opened an investigation into three judges who participated in the decision that acquitted former President Alvaro Uribe in the second instance.
The process seeks to establish whether there were irregularities in the actions of the judges who made up the court that overturned the sentence imposed in the first instance.
The decision reopens the debate over one of the most sensitive judicial cases of recent years in Colombia. Although the acquittal remains in effect, the conduct of the judges is now under disciplinary review amid questions about possible conflicts of interest and compliance with rules that guarantee judicial impartiality.
The acquittal was issued in mid-October last year by the Criminal Chamber of the Bogota Superior Court. Now, according to the brief filed against three judges who issued that ruling, the omission of a declaration of recusal “altered the composition of the court and may have changed the outcome of the vote, which was adopted by a two-to-one majority,” which, in its view, violated due process and the principle of judicial impartiality.
Colombia investigates judges for alleged irregularities in the acquittal of former President Uribe
The investigation was launched by the National Commission of Judicial Discipline after it admitted a citizen complaint alleging irregularities in the composition of the panel that issued the acquittal.
The body, which oversees the conduct of judges and magistrates, determined that there are sufficient elements to open a preliminary inquiry and verify whether official duties were breached.
The disciplinary case involves judges Manuel Antonio Merchan Gutierrez, Alexandra Ossa Sanchez, and Maria Leonor Oviedo Pinto, who were part of the decision that overturned the conviction against Uribe.
The complaint states that one member of the court should have declared a conflict of interest, which, if confirmed, could affect the validity of that judge’s participation in the ruling.
The opening of the proceedings does not imply a sanction or anticipate responsibility. It is an initial stage in which evidence will be gathered, actions reviewed, and the statements of the judges involved heard.
Only after that analysis will the Commission determine whether any disciplinary offense occurred.
Before this investigation was opened, the citizen who filed the complaint sought to challenge the ruling through a tutela action before the Supreme Court of Justice. In that petition, the complainant argued that the alleged failure to declare a conflict of interest violated due process and undermined the transparency of the decision.
However, the Criminal Cassation Chamber rejected the tutela, considering that the petitioner lacked standing to file it since he was not a direct party to the criminal proceedings. After that setback, the challenge continued through disciplinary channels, which are now moving forward before the National Commission of Judicial Discipline.
The debate centers on compliance with the regime of disqualifications and incompatibilities that governs judicial officials. These rules seek to prevent conflicts of interest and protect impartiality in decision-making. If it is proven that there was an undeclared impediment, the Commission could impose sanctions ranging from reprimands to suspensions.
A case of high political and judicial impact
The case against Alvaro Uribe has been one of the most controversial in the country’s recent history. As a former president and a central figure in Colombian politics for more than two decades, every judicial decision related to his case has generated strong reactions across different sectors.
The first-instance conviction marked an unprecedented event. For the first time, a former Colombian president was found guilty in an ordinary criminal proceeding. Months later, the second-instance acquittal changed the legal and political landscape by overturning the conviction.
The opening of this disciplinary investigation once again puts the focus on how that decision was made. Although the acquittal remains in force, the review of the judges’ conduct adds a new chapter to a controversy that seemed closed.
It should be recalled that this trial has lasted more than a decade and ultimately stems from a cross-complaint between the conservative former president and leader of the Democratic Center party and Senator Ivan Cepeda, now a presidential hopeful for the left-wing ruling coalition.
From conviction to acquittal and awaiting the Constitutional Court
The trial against Alvaro Uribe began following accusations of procedural fraud and bribery in criminal proceedings. In the first instance, a Bogota judge found him guilty and imposed a sentence of house arrest, in a ruling considered historic because it involved a former president of the Republic.
The defense appealed, and the case moved to the Bogota Superior Court for second-instance review. There, a criminal chamber overturned the conviction and acquitted Uribe after concluding that there was insufficient evidence to uphold criminal liability. With that decision, the former president fully regained his freedom, and the initial conviction was nullified.
Despite the acquittal, the case is not definitively closed. It is currently pending a final ruling by the Constitutional Court, which must rule on key aspects of the proceedings. That decision could have implications not only for Uribe’s judicial future but also for the interpretation of procedural guarantees in Colombia.
The disciplinary investigation against the judges does not, for now, modify the former president’s legal status. However, it does prolong the controversy surrounding a case that has divided public opinion and continues to shape the country’s judicial agenda.