logo
Colombia's ex-President Álvaro Uribe found guilty of bribery and abuse of process in landmark ruling

Colombia's ex-President Álvaro Uribe found guilty of bribery and abuse of process in landmark ruling

Mint10 hours ago
Colombia's former President Álvaro Uribe was found guilty on Monday of abuse of process and bribing a public official in a long-running witness-tampering case, marking the first time a former Colombian president has been convicted at trial.
Judge Sandra Liliana Heredia delivered the verdict in court, acquitting Uribe of a third charge related to bribery.
The ruling, which Uribe is likely to challenge through an appeal, is the latest development in a deeply political legal battle that has stretched over 13 years.
Uribe, 73, and his supporters say the process is a persecution and that he is innocent. His detractors have celebrated it as the deserved downfall for a man who has been repeatedly accused of close relationships with violent right-wing paramilitaries, but never convicted of any crime.
Each charge carries a jail sentence of between six and 12 years. Heredia is expected to sentence Uribe in a later hearing.
"Justice does not kneel before power," Heredia told the court on Monday morning, before spending about nine hours reading her decision. "It is at the service of the Colombian people."
"We want to say to Colombia that justice has arrived," she said, adding that her full decision is some 1,000 pages long.
Uribe and one of his lawyers, Jaime Granados, joined the hearing via video link, while another lawyer, Jaime Lombana, appeared in person.
Granados said the presumption of Uribe's innocence should be maintained and asked for him to remain free during the remainder of the process, a decision Heredia said she will take on Friday.
Both detractors and supporters of the former president gathered outside the court, with some Uribe backers sporting masks of his face.
Even if the conviction is eventually upheld, Uribe may be allowed to serve his sentence on house arrest because of his age.
Uribe, who was president from 2002 to 2010 and oversaw a military offensive against leftist guerrilla groups, was investigated along with several allies over allegations of witness tampering carried out in an attempt to discredit accusations he had ties to paramilitaries.
Judges have twice rejected requests by prosecutors to shelve the case, which stems from Uribe's allegation in 2012 that leftist Senator Ivan Cepeda had orchestrated a plot to tie him to paramilitaries.
The Supreme Court said in 2018 that Cepeda had collected information from former fighters as part of his work and had not paid or pressured former paramilitaries. Instead, the court said it was Uribe and his allies who pressured witnesses.
Cepeda attended the hearing in person with his counsel.
Uribe's trial triggered sharp criticism from U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio ahead of the judge's decision. Uribe had a close relationship with the U.S. during his two terms as president.
"Uribe's only crime has been to tirelessly fight and defend his homeland. The weaponization of Colombia's judicial branch by radical judges has now set a worrisome precedent," Rubio said on X.
"A decision against the ex-president could generate some kind of reprisal by the government of the United States," Banco de Bogota said in a note on Monday, referring to a proposal by U.S. Republican lawmaker Mario Diaz-Balart to cut non-military aid to Colombia next year, partly on concerns of due process violations in the Uribe case.
Uribe, who was placed under house arrest for two months in 2020, is head of the powerful Democratic Center party and was a senator for years both before and after his presidency.
He has repeatedly emphasized that he extradited paramilitary leaders to the United States.
Colombia's truth commission says paramilitary groups, which demobilized under deals with Uribe's government, killed more than 205,000 people, nearly half of the 450,000 deaths recorded during the ongoing civil conflict.
Paramilitaries, along with guerrilla groups and members of the armed forces, also committed forced disappearances, sexual violence, displacement and other crimes.
Uribe joins a list of Latin American leaders who have been convicted and sometimes jailed, including Peru's Alberto Fujimori, Brazil's Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, Ecuador's Rafael Correa, Argentina's Cristina Fernandez and Panama's Ricardo Martinelli.
(Reporting by Luis Jaime Acosta, Carlos Vargas, Nelson Bocanegra and Julia Symmes Cobb; Editing by Leslie Adler)
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Supreme Court stays trial in two cases involving Azam Khan's son Abdullah
Supreme Court stays trial in two cases involving Azam Khan's son Abdullah

The Hindu

time26 minutes ago

  • The Hindu

Supreme Court stays trial in two cases involving Azam Khan's son Abdullah

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (July 29, 2025) stayed an order of the Allahabad High Court directing Rampur's MP-MLA Court to proceed with the trial in two cases linked to former MLA and senior Samajwadi Party (SP) leader Azam Khan's son Mohammad Abdullah Azam Khan. A Bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and N. Kotiswar Singh also issued notice to the Uttar Pradesh Government on an appeal filed by Mr. Abdullah. On July 23, the High Court dismissed two petitions filed by Mr. Abdullah challenging the proceedings of criminal cases against him. The first case is related to Mr. Abdullah's alleged fake passport and the second case to his obtaining two PAN cards. 'Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in my considered view, the instant application is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed,' the High Court said. Mr. Abdullah filed separate petitions in the High Court concerning the two cases requesting it to set aside the entire criminal proceedings of the ongoing trials in Rampur's MP/MLA Court. BJP MLA Akash Saxena had filed a case against Mr. Abdullah in Rampur on July 30, 2019, alleging fraud and violation of the Passport Act for allegedly obtaining the travel document using an incorrect date of birth. According to the complaint, Mr. Abdullah was issued a passport on January 10, 2018. The passport lists the date of birth as September 30, 1990 but his educational certificates say January 1, 1993. Mr. Saxena also filed an FIR against Mr. Abdullah and father Azam Khan at the Civil Lines police station in Rampur on December 6, 2019. Mr. Saxena alleged that Mr. Abdullah had furnished an incorrect PAN number in his election affidavit during the 2017 Assembly elections. Mr. Saxena also accused Mr. Azam Khan of being a fraudster and a liar, claiming that the senior SP leader got two PAN cards made for his son through fraud to enable him to contest elections. According to him, Mr. Abdullah allegedly concealed this fact in the affidavit submitted to the Election Commission of India (ECI). He showed one PAN number in the affidavit, but used another number in his income tax return documents.

Vulgar messages to actress Ramya: Such incidents must be brought to a halt, says K'taka Home Minister
Vulgar messages to actress Ramya: Such incidents must be brought to a halt, says K'taka Home Minister

Time of India

timean hour ago

  • Time of India

Vulgar messages to actress Ramya: Such incidents must be brought to a halt, says K'taka Home Minister

Commenting on the incident involving actress and former Congress MP Ramya, receiving vulgar messages from supporters of Darshan after her remarks on the fan murder case involving the Kannada actor, Karnataka Home Minister G. Parameshwara stated that such incidents "must be brought to a halt." Speaking to reporters in Bengaluru on Tuesday, Home Minister Parameshwara said, "We have to take this development very seriously. Such incidents should not be repeated in the future. Today it has happened to actress Ramya; tomorrow, someone else might become a victim. We need to put a full stop to this. The Bengaluru Police Commissioner will take appropriate action." "I have not issued any specific instructions. The police will take necessary action on their own. We have also taken note of the letter from the State Women's Commission regarding this matter. Their letter will be responded to. I will also instruct the concerned authorities to ensure that such incidents do not occur again," Parameshwara added. Ramya filed a complaint with Bengaluru Police Commissioner Seemanth Kumar Singh on Monday evening against actor Darshan's fans for sending obscene and defamatory messages following her post on the fan murder case. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Villas For Sale in Dubai Might Surprise You Villas In Dubai | Search Ads Get Rates Undo Darshan is the second accused in the case, and the Supreme Court has reserved its verdict on an appeal challenging the grant of bail to him. Speaking to the media after filing the complaint, Ramya said, "I shared news about the Supreme Court's development regarding actor Darshan's bail petition to give hope to common people about justice. After that, the trolling began. I have filed this complaint as a voice for women." "I have lodged a complaint against 43 social media accounts. Some of them even threatened me with rape. If this can happen to me, what about others? Bengaluru Police Commissioner Seemanth Kumar Singh has assured me of action and has transferred the case to the Cyber Crime Wing. Women have the same freedom as men. Actor Darshan should have asked his fans not to post such messages," she added. "I don't have any personal connection with actor Darshan. I had met him once at a wedding before the fan murder case. If he had warned his fans earlier, the deceased fan Renukaswamy might not have been killed. He was Darshan's fan and likely wouldn't have sent messages to Pavithra Gowda," Ramya said. Pavithra Gowda, Darshan's girlfriend, is the prime accused in the murder case. In her complaint Ramya stated, "The disgruntled fans of actor Darshan (upset) by my act of sharing the news reporting the Supreme Court's proceedings, have sent scandalous, ghastly and obnoxious messages to my Instagram handle through various accounts. The messages sent to me are so disgusting and misogynistic that I am unable to even reproduce the same in the complaint." Ramya is also a film producer and has acted in more than 40 movies in different languages in the lead role. She has acted as a heroine opposite superstars like Dhanush, Surya, late Puneeth Rajkumar and others. Meanwhile, the organisation, Film Industry for Rights and Equality (FIRE), submitted a letter to Karnataka Home Minister G. Parameshwara on Monday demanding immediate action against vulgar and misogynistic social media abuse targeting Ramya. Reacting to the vulgar messages and videos posted by actor Darshan's fans against the Kannada actress, the Karnataka State Women's Commission on Monday urged Bengaluru Police Commissioner Singh to take action in the matter.

SC to hear Presidential Reference on timelines for Governor, President's assent to bills from August 19
SC to hear Presidential Reference on timelines for Governor, President's assent to bills from August 19

United News of India

timean hour ago

  • United News of India

SC to hear Presidential Reference on timelines for Governor, President's assent to bills from August 19

New Delhi, Jul 29 (UNI) The Supreme Court today announced that it will begin hearings on the Presidential Reference concerning the constitutional powers of the Governor and the President in relation to granting or withholding assent to state legislation, under Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution. The hearings will commence on August 19 and continue through September 10, with the Court making it clear that the schedule is non-negotiable and will not be altered under any circumstances. A Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Justice BR Gavai, and comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha, and AS Chandurkar, will adjudicate the Reference made by President Droupadi Murmu under Article 143 of the Constitution. The Court has directed all parties to submit their written submissions by August 12. The hearing schedule will be as follows: August 19: Kerala and Tamil Nadu governments to raise preliminary objections to the maintainability of the Reference. August 19, 20, 21, 26: Attorney General and the Union of India to argue in support of the Reference. August 28, September 2, 3, and 9: States opposing the Reference will present their arguments. September 10: Rejoinders, if any, to be heard. The Court has appointed Advocate Aman Mehta as the nodal counsel for the Union and Advocate Misha Rohatgi as the nodal counsel for the opposing States to compile and coordinate submissions. Senior Advocate KK Venugopal, appearing for the State of Kerala, informed the Bench that Kerala has filed an application contending that 11 out of the 14 questions raised in the Reference have already been answered by the Supreme Court in the Tamil Nadu Governor case. He submitted that invoking Article 143 in this instance amounts to an attempt to bypass or undermine that judgment. Senior Advocates Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi and P Wilson, appearing for the State of Tamil Nadu, informed the Court that Tamil Nadu has also challenged the maintainability of the Reference, echoing similar concerns. The Reference follows the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in the Tamil Nadu Governor case, where a two-judge bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan held that Governors must act within a three-month timeframe when deciding on assent to Bills passed by the legislature. The Court also stated that if the Governor reserves a Bill for Presidential assent, the President must likewise act within three months. Importantly, the Court ruled that if either constitutional authority fails to act within the stipulated time, a writ of mandamus can be sought by the concerned State. In that judgment, the Court also held that ten Bills kept pending for over a year had received deemed assent. The Reference by the President seeks clarity on 14 substantive constitutional questions, including, What options are available to a Governor under Article 200 when a Bill is presented? Is the Governor bound by the advice of the Council of Ministers while acting under Article 200? Is the Governor's discretion under Article 200 subject to judicial review? Does Article 361 bar courts from reviewing the Governor's actions under Article 200? Can courts impose timelines on Governors and prescribe how their powers should be exercised in the absence of constitutional guidelines? Is the President's discretion under Article 201 justiciable? Can courts prescribe timelines for the President's actions under Article 201? Is the President required to consult the Supreme Court before acting on a Bill reserved by a Governor? Are the decisions of the Governor and President under Articles 200 and 201 justiciable before a law comes into force? Can orders or actions by the President or Governor be overridden using Article 142? Does a law passed by a State legislature come into force without the Governor's assent under Article 200? Should constitutional benches determine in advance if a matter involves substantial questions of constitutional interpretation under Article 145(3)? Does Article 142 empower the Supreme Court to issue orders contrary to existing constitutional or statutory provisions? Is Article 131 the sole remedy for resolving disputes between the Union and States? The hearing promises to be a landmark event, with far-reaching implications on Centre-State relations, constitutional conventions, and judicial limits on executive discretion. UNI SNG AAB

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store