The government of President Gustavo Petro allegedly awarded contracts in Colombia worth 31 trillion pesos (approximately US$8.5 billion) directly, without bidding processes, according to an exclusive investigation published Thursday by local outlet El Tiempo.
The revelation puts under scrutiny one of the pillars of the current administration’s budget execution, which has already been shaken in the recent past by other cases that are currently under judicial investigation.
Among these, the scandal involving the National Unit for Disaster Risk Management (UNGRD) stands out, from which 1.4 trillion pesos (approximately US$380 million) were allegedly diverted in a bribery network affecting two of Petro’s former ministers, who are currently imprisoned.
The information published about this alleged new case of irregularities exposes a massive contracting scheme with social and community organizations across the country, amid questions over the lack of competition and potential risks of political use of public resources.
Petro administration flagged of US$8.5B in cronyism-linked contracts in Colombia
According to the investigation revealed by El Tiempo, the Colombian state awarded more than 31 trillion pesos in contracts by direct selection—that is, without competitive bidding processes. These resources were allegedly channeled through a mechanism included in the National Development Plan that allowed agreements with grassroots organizations, but which was later questioned over transparency concerns.
The report notes that, in total, more than 80,000 contracts were signed under this scheme, distributed among different types of community organizations. Most of the money was allegedly directed to community associations, which concentrated tens of thousands of contracts worth trillions of pesos, followed by community councils, Indigenous reserves, and cabildos.
The scale of the resources and the speed of their allocation have raised concerns among political sectors and oversight bodies, which warn of the risk that these mechanisms may have been used without adequate controls. In addition, the lack of competition in the allocation limits the ability to verify whether the financial terms were the most favorable for the state.
In this sense, the investigation—if it takes place—would proceed not over a potential embezzlement of public funds, but over the awarding model which, if the information published by the Colombian media outlet is confirmed, would be deemed “unconstitutional” (inexequibles, in Spanish) by the Constitutional Court.
🔴 Primicia: gobierno de Gustavo Petro destinó $31 billones de pesos a contratos directos con asociaciones populares.
🚨 Un derecho de petición contestado por Colombia Compra Eficiente a EL TIEMPO reveló esta cifra, así como los rezagos en la terminación de los compromisos. Los… pic.twitter.com/pHXp4UfrNr
— EL TIEMPO (@ELTIEMPO) March 26, 2026
Legal questions and the PPP figure
One of the most sensitive aspects of the case is the use of so-called public-popular partnerships, a mechanism included in the National Development Plan of Gustavo Petro’s government. This tool was intended to facilitate the execution of projects with social organizations, but ultimately became the subject of legal controversy.
According to the reported information, Colombia’s Constitutional Court struck down this mechanism, finding that it did not meet the transparency standards required by law. In particular, the high court questioned the unclear expansion of the possibility of direct contracting without precisely defining the criteria for its application.
This ruling not only casts doubt on the legality of contracts signed under that scheme, but also opens the door to possible fiscal and disciplinary investigations. The concern lies in whether the resources were executed in accordance with the law or, on the contrary, whether irregularities occurred that could compromise the responsibility of public officials.
Beyond the legal doubts, the investigation has fueled a broader debate about the potential political use of public contracting. Various sources cited in the report warn that the allocation of these resources may have had a strategic electoral component, especially given the type of organizations that benefited.
Community action boards and other territorial organizations have a strong presence in local communities, making them key actors in social and political mobilization. The awarding of multimillion-dollar contracts to these structures could translate into political support in specific regions—a phenomenon that in Colombia has historically been associated with clientelist practices.
This allegation adds to previous criticism over the increase in service contracts and the formation of what some analysts have called a “parallel payroll” in the state—practices that have been questioned for their potential use in consolidating political loyalties.
Allegations involving more than 80,000 contracts
El Tiempo states that, despite the judicial annulment of this type of contracting, “the Executive invested more than 25 trillion pesos [approximately US$6.75 billion] in 55,434 contracts with community associations; more than 2 trillion [US$540 million] in 13,970 contracts with community councils; more than 1 trillion [approximately US$270 million] in 2,274 contracts with reserves; more than 700 billion [approximately US$190 million] in 1,389 contracts with cabildos; more than 6.9 billion [approximately US$1.9 million] in 6,927 contracts with community action boards; and more than 382 billion [approximately US$103 million] in 742 contracts with Indigenous cabildos.”
The outlet also adds that “of the 55,434 contracts with community associations, only 7,309, worth 4.7 trillion [approximately US$1.27 billion], appear as completed. In the case of cabildos, only 165, worth 137 billion [approximately US$37 million]; of community councils, just over 1,000, worth around 300 billion [US$81 million]; of community action boards, 539, worth 22 billion [US$5.9 million]; of Indigenous cabildos, only 48, worth 17 billion [approximately US$4.6 million]; and of reserves, 214, worth 448 billion [approximately US$121 million].”
The enormous volume of money and beneficiaries suggests the political and legal consequences of the case, beyond its final resolution in court, if any.
In fact, some regular critics of the government on social media have already pointed out that the amount allegedly allocated in public contracts exceeds the total debt of the health system, which currently stands at 30 trillion pesos (approximately US$8.1 billion).
Reactions and possible consequences
So far, the government has not issued a detailed response to the full scope of the revelations, although on previous occasions it has defended contracting with social organizations as a mechanism to bring direct investment to territories and strengthen the popular economy.
However, the magnitude of the figures and the legal context in which the contracts were awarded point to a new front of pressure for Gustavo Petro’s administration. It is foreseeable that oversight bodies such as the Comptroller General’s Office and the Inspector General’s Office will assess the legality of these processes and determine whether there was fiscal damage or disciplinary misconduct.
On the political front, the opposition is already beginning to use the case as an argument to question the government’s anti-corruption banner—and, in the process, to target the ruling party’s candidate, Ivan Cepeda—while independent sectors are calling for clarity on the destination of the resources and the concrete results of the funded projects.
El Tiempo investigation thus opens a new chapter in the debate over transparency in public contracting in Colombia, historically under scrutiny given the traditional system—long questioned for potential favoritism—of large state contractors that has characterized the country’s private sector for decades.
Beyond the individual responsibilities that may be established, the case raises fundamental questions about the limits between the execution of social policies and the political use of state resources, at a particularly sensitive moment due to the approaching electoral calendar, which will undoubtedly open a new chapter of political controversy.