Colombia ex-president sentenced to 12 years of house arrest, document shows
BOGOTA (Reuters) -Former Colombian President Alvaro Uribe will be sentenced on Friday to 12 years of house arrest for abuse of process and bribery of a public official, according to a document seen by Reuters and a source with knowledge of the matter.
Uribe was convicted of the two charges on Monday by Judge Sandra Liliana Heredia in a witness-tampering case that has run for about 13 years. He has always maintained his innocence.
The information, also published by local media, came hours ahead of the hearing where Heredia will read the sentence in court.
Uribe will be fined $578,000 in the case, the document showed.
The conviction made him the country's first ex-president to ever be found guilty at trial and came less than a year before Colombia's 2026 presidential election, in which several of Uribe's allies and proteges are competing for top office.
It could also have implications for Colombia's relationship with the U.S.: Secretary of State Marco Rubio said this week Uribe's conviction is a "weaponization of Colombia's judicial branch by radical judges" and analysts have said there could be cuts to U.S. aid in response.
Uribe, 73, and his supporters have always said the process is a persecution, while his detractors have celebrated it as deserved comeuppance for a man who has been accused for decades of close ties with violent right-wing paramilitaries but never convicted of any crime until now.
(Reporting by Carlos Vargas and Luis Jaime Acosta, additional reporting by Nelson BocanegraWriting by Julia Symmes Cobb)
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Star
a few seconds ago
- The Star
Exclusive-Missed signals, lost deal: How India-US trade talks collapsed
NEW DELHI/WASHINGTON (Reuters) -After five rounds of trade negotiations, Indian officials were so confident of securing a favourable deal with the United States that they even signalled to the media that tariffs could be capped at 15%. Indian officials expected U.S. President Donald Trump to announce the deal himself weeks before the August 1 deadline. The announcement never came. New Delhi is now left with the surprise imposition of a 25% tariff on Indian goods from Friday, along with unspecified penalties over oil imports from Russia, while Trump has closed larger deals with Japan and the EU, and even offered better terms to arch-rival Pakistan. Interviews with four Indian government officials and two U.S. government officials revealed previously undisclosed details of the proposed deal and an exclusive account of how negotiations collapsed despite technical agreements on most issues. The officials on both sides said a mix of political misjudgment, missed signals and bitterness broke down the deal between the world's biggest and fifth-largest economies, whose bilateral trade is worth over $190 billion. The White House, the U.S. Trade Representative office, and India's Prime Minister's Office, along with the External Affairs and Commerce ministries, did not respond to emailed requests for comment. India believed that after visits by Indian Trade Minister Piyush Goyal to Washington and U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance to Delhi, it had made a series of deal-clinching concessions. New Delhi was offering zero tariffs on industrial goods that formed about 40% of U.S. exports to India, two Indian government officials told Reuters. Despite domestic pressure, India would also gradually lower tariffs on U.S. cars and alcohol with quotas and accede to Washington's main demand of higher energy and defence imports from the U.S., the officials said. "Most differences were resolved after the fifth round in Washington, raising hopes of a breakthrough," one of the officials said, adding negotiators believed the U.S. would accommodate India's reluctance on duty-free farm imports and dairy products from the U.S. It was a miscalculation. Trump saw the issue differently and wanted more concessions. "A lot of progress was made on many fronts in India talks, but there was never a deal that we felt good about," said one White House official. "We never got to what amounted to a full deal - a deal that we were looking for." OVER-CONFIDENCE AND MISCALCULATION Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who visited Washington in February, agreed to target a deal by fall 2025, and more than double bilateral trade to $500 billion by 2030. To bridge the $47 billion goods trade gap, India pledged to buy up to $25 billion in U.S. energy and boost defence imports. But officials now admit India grew overconfident after Trump talked up a "big" imminent deal, taking it as a signal that a favourable agreement was in hand. New Delhi then hardened its stance, especially on agriculture and dairy, two highly sensitive areas for the Indian government. "We are one of the fastest growing economies, and the U.S. can't ignore a market of 1.4 billion," one Indian official involved in the negotiations said in mid-July. Negotiators even pushed for relief from the 10% average U.S. tariff announced in April, plus a rollback of steel, aluminium and auto duties. Later, India scaled back expectations after the U.S. signed trade deals with key partners including Japan, and the European Union, hoping it could secure a similar 15% tariff rate with fewer concessions. That was unacceptable to the White House. "Trump wanted a headline-grabbing announcement with broader market access, investments and large purchases," said a Washington-based source familiar with the talks. An Indian official acknowledged New Delhi wasn't ready to match what others offered. South Korea, for example, struck a deal just before Trump's August 1 deadline, securing a 15% rate instead of 25% by offering $350 billion in investments, higher energy imports, and concessions on rice and beef. COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN "At one point, both sides were very close to signing the deal," said Mark Linscott, a former U.S. Trade Representative who now works for a lobby group that is close to the discussions between the two nations. "The missing component was a direct line of communication between President Trump and Prime Minister Modi." A White House official strongly disputed this, noting other deals had been resolved without such intervention. An Indian government official involved in the talks said Modi could not have called, fearing a one-sided conversation with Trump that could put him on the spot. However, the other three Indian officials said Trump's repeated remarks about mediating the India-Pakistan conflict further strained negotiations and contributed to Modi not making a final call. "Trump's remarks on Pakistan didn't go down well," one of them said. "Ideally, India should have acknowledged the U.S. role while making it clear the final call was ours." A senior Indian government official blamed the collapse on poor judgment, saying top Indian advisers mishandled the process. "We lacked the diplomatic support needed after the U.S. struck better deals with Vietnam, Indonesia, Japan and the EU," the official said. "We're now in a crisis that could have been avoided." Trump said on Tuesday he would increase the tariff on imports from India from the current rate of 25% "very substantially" over the next 24 hours and alleged that New Delhi's purchases of Russian oil were "fuelling the war" in Ukraine. WAY FORWARD Talks are ongoing, with a U.S. delegation expected in Delhi later this month and Indian government officials still believe the deal can be salvaged from here. "It's still possible," one White House official said. The Indian government is re-examining areas within the farm and dairy sectors where concessions can be made, the fourth official said. On Russian oil, India could reduce some purchases in favour of U.S. supplies if pricing is matched. "It likely will require direct communication between the prime minister and the president," said Linscott. "Pick up the phone. Right now, we are in a lose-lose. But there is real potential for a win-win trade deal." (Reporting by Manoj Kumar, Aftab Ahmed, Shivam Patel, Sarita Chaganti Singh in New Delhi, and Trevor Hunnicutt in Washington; Editing by Saad Sayeed)
The Star
30 minutes ago
- The Star
Musk vs. Modi: Inside the battle over India's internet censorship
BENGALURU/NEW DELHI (Reuters) -In January, an old post on Elon Musk's social media platform, X, became a concern for police in the Indian city of Satara. Written in 2023, the short message from an account with a few hundred followers described a senior ruling-party politician as "useless". "This post and content are likely to create serious communal tension," inspector Jitendra Shahane wrote in a content-removal notice marked "CONFIDENTIAL" and addressed to X. The post, which remains online, is among hundreds cited by X in a lawsuit it filed in March against India's government, challenging a sweeping crackdown on social media content by Prime Minister Narendra Modi's administration. Since 2023, India has ramped up efforts to police the internet by allowing many more officials to file takedown orders and to submit them directly to tech firms through a government website launched in October. X argues India's actions are illegal and unconstitutional, and that they trample free speech by empowering scores of government agencies and thousands of police to suppress legitimate criticism of public officials. India contends in court documents that its approach tackles a proliferation of unlawful content and ensures accountability online. It says many tech companies, including Meta and Alphabet's Google, support its actions. Both companies declined to comment for this story. Musk, who calls himself a free-speech absolutist, has clashed with authorities in the United States, Brazil, Australia and elsewhere over compliance and takedown demands. But as regulators globally weigh free-speech protections against concerns about harmful content, Musk's case against Modi's government in the Karnataka High Court targets the entire basis for tightened internet censorship in India, one of X's biggest user bases. Musk said in 2023 that the South Asian nation had "more promise than any large country in the world" and that Modi had pushed him to invest there. This account of the behind-the-scenes battle between the world's richest person and authorities in the world's most populous country is based on a Reuters review of 2,500 pages of non-public legal filings and interviews with seven police officers involved in content-removal requests. It reveals the workings of a takedown system shrouded in secrecy, some Indian officials' ire over "illegal" material on X, and the broad spectrum of content that police and other agencies have sought to censor. While the takedown orders include many that sought to counter misinformation, they also encompass directives by Modi's administration to remove news about a deadly stampede, and demands from state police to scrub cartoons that depicted the prime minister in an unfavourable light or mocked local politicians, the filings show. X didn't respond to Reuters questions about the case, while India's IT ministry declined to comment because the matter was before the court. Modi's office and his home ministry didn't respond to questions. There have been no immediate signs of souring personal relations between Musk and Modi, who have enjoyed a warm public rapport. But the showdown comes as the South African-born entrepreneur, whose business empire includes EV maker Tesla and satellite internet provider Starlink, gears up to expand both ventures in India. Even supporters of Modi's Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) have faced scrutiny of their online musings from police officials newly empowered by the IT ministry to target social media activity. Koustav Bagchi, a lawyer and BJP member, posted an image on X in March that depicted a rival, West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee, in an astronaut suit. State police issued a takedown notice, citing "risks to public safety and national security". Bagchi told Reuters the post, which is still online, was "light-hearted" and that he wasn't aware of the takedown order. The chief minister's office and state police didn't respond to Reuters queries. Of the earlier 2023 post, Shahane, the Satara police officer, told Reuters he couldn't recall the takedown order, but said police sometimes proactively ask platforms to block offensive viral content. 'CENSORSHIP PORTAL' For years, only India's IT and Information & Broadcasting ministries could order content removal, and only for threats to sovereignty, defense, security, foreign relations, public order, or incitement. Some 99 officials across India could recommend takedowns, but the ministries had the final say. While that mechanism remains in place, Modi's IT ministry in 2023 empowered all federal and state agencies and police to issue takedown notices for "any information which is prohibited under any law". They could do so under existing legal provisions, the ministry said in a directive, citing the need for "effective" content removal. Companies that fail to comply can lose immunity for user content, making them liable for the same penalties a user might face - which could vary greatly depending on the specific material posted. Modi's government went a step further in October 2024. It launched a website called Sahyog - Hindi for collaboration - to "facilitate" the issuance of takedown notices, and asked Indian officials and social media firms to get on board, memos contained in court papers show. X didn't join Sahyog, which it has called a "censorship portal", and sued the government earlier this year, challenging the legal basis for both the new website and the IT ministry's 2023 directive. In a June 24 filing, X said some of the blocking orders issued by officials "target content involving satire or criticism of the ruling government, and show a pattern of abuse of authority to suppress free speech." Some free-speech advocates have criticised the government's stricter takedown regime, saying it is designed to stifle dissent. "Can a claim that some content is unlawful be termed as indeed unlawful merely because the government claims so?" said Subramaniam Vincent, director of journalism and media ethics at Santa Clara University's Markkula Center for Applied Ethics. "The executive branch cannot be both the arbiter of legality of media content, and the issuer of takedown notices." RED DINOSAUR Court filings reviewed by Reuters show federal and state agencies ordered X to remove around 1,400 posts or accounts between March 2024 and June 2025. More than 70% of these removal notices were issued by the Indian Cybercrime Coordination Centre, which developed the Sahyog website. The agency is within the home ministry, which is headed by Modi aide Amit Shah, a powerful figure in the ruling BJP. To counter X in court, India's government filed a 92-page report drafted by the cybercrime unit to show X is "hosting illegal content". The unit analysed nearly 300 posts it deemed unlawful, including misinformation, hoaxes, and child sexual-abuse material. X serves as a vehicle for "spreading hate and division" that threatens social harmony, while "fake news" on the platform has sparked unspecified law-and-order issues, the agency said in the report. The government's response to X's lawsuit highlighted examples of misinformation. In January, the cybercrime unit asked X to remove three posts containing what officials said were fabricated images that portrayed Shah's son, International Cricket Council chairman Jay Shah, "in a derogatory manner" alongside a bikini-clad woman. The posts "dishonour prominent office bearers and VIPs", the notices said. Two of those posts remain online. Jay Shah didn't respond to Reuters queries. Other directives went beyond targeting fake news. X told the court India's railways ministry has been issuing orders to censor press reports about matters of public interest. These included February directives seeking the removal of posts by some media outlets, including two by Adani Group's NDTV, that contained news coverage of stampede at New Delhi's biggest railway station that left 18 dead. The NDTV posts are still online. NDTV didn't respond to Reuters queries and the railways ministry declined to comment. In April, police in Chennai asked X to remove many "deeply offensive" and "provocative" posts, including a now-inaccessible cartoon featuring a red dinosaur labelled "inflation", which portrayed Modi and the chief minister of Tamil Nadu state as struggling to control prices. The same month, police demanded the removal of another cartoon that mocked the state government's lack of preparedness for floods by showing a boat with holes. X told the judge the cartoon was posted in November, and it could not "incite political tensions" several months later, as the Chennai police asserted. The post remains online. The state government didn't respond to a request for comment. When Reuters visited the Chennai cybercrime police station that issued these directives, Deputy Commissioner B. Geetha criticised X for seldom acting on takedown requests. X does not "fully grasp the cultural sensitivities", she said. "What may be acceptable in some countries can be considered taboo in India." (Reporting by Munsif Vengattil in Bengaluru, Arpan Chaturvedi and Aditya Kalra in New Delhi; Additional reporting by Praveen Paramasivam in Chennai, Saurabh Sharma in Lucknow, Jatindra Dash in Bhubaneswar and Shilpa Jamkhandikar in Mumbai; Editing by David Crawshaw.)
The Sun
4 hours ago
- The Sun
Mexico and Canada strategise against Trump tariffs amid USMCA tensions
MEXICO CITY: Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum hosted Canadian officials to coordinate responses to US President Donald Trump's escalating trade tariffs, despite the existing USMCA free trade agreement. The talks focused on mitigating economic impacts while preparing for a future visit by Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney. Trump recently raised tariffs on select Canadian goods to 35% and postponed a 30% levy on Mexican imports for 90 days. Both nations face broader US duties on steel, aluminum, and automotive exports. Mexican Economy Secretary Marcelo Ebrard stated, 'They (Canada) are paying a 35 percent tariff and Mexico is not; we are going to exchange experiences, they want to know how Mexico is achieving these results.' The meetings included Canada's Finance Minister Francois-Philippe Champagne and Foreign Minister Anita Anand, with Sheinbaum noting on social media, 'we are strengthening the relationship between our countries.' Discussions also covered security and trade ahead of the USMCA's scheduled review in January 2026. Trump has criticised both nations for insufficient border controls against undocumented migration and fentanyl trafficking. - Reuters
