Court overturns Uribe convictions
Appeals judges rule key evidence was legally insufficient for conviction
An appeals court in Bogotá annulled former president Álvaro Uribe’s convictions for fraud and bribery tied to alleged witness tampering, overturning a 12‑year house‑arrest sentence and ruling key evidence—notably intercepted communications—was legally insufficient or improperly obtained. The three‑magistrate panel said the original trial suffered procedural and evidentiary flaws, effectively vacating the verdict that had made Uribe the first ex‑Colombian head of state to be criminally convicted.
The case stems from allegations that Uribe orchestrated payments through a lawyer to jailed ex‑paramilitaries to alter testimony that linked him to right‑wing militia groups active during Colombia’s protracted internal conflict. Those paramilitary networks, backed historically by landowners and local elites to counter leftist guerrillas, have been implicated in widespread abuses, including killings documented by truth commissions. Prosecutors and the Supreme Court had previously concluded there was evidence suggesting Uribe pressured witnesses; Uribe has consistently denied the charges and characterized proceedings as politically motivated persecution.
Reactions were immediate and polarized. President Gustavo Petro criticized the appeals court decision as a setback to efforts to expose and reduce paramilitary influence in Colombian politics. Uribe’s allies and supporters hailed the ruling as a legal vindication and a correction of judicial overreach. Senator Iván Cepeda—who played a central role in the original investigation and was accused by Uribe years earlier of manipulating ex‑paramilitary testimony—announced he will appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court, keeping open the prospect that the matter will return to the country’s highest court and extend the litigation further.
Legal observers highlighted that the appeals court judgment focused on admissibility and the probative value of evidence, particularly wiretaps and other judicial interceptions, concluding they did not meet the stringent standards required for conviction. The decision therefore pivots on technical legal grounds as much as on the substantive allegations, raising questions about procedure, investigative methods and the proper balance between rights of the accused and the pursuit of accountability for past atrocities.
The broader political stakes are high. The case has been a defining element of Colombia’s reckoning with its violent past and the role of paramilitarism in shaping political life.
