&w=3840&q=100)
Ex-Argentina Prez Cristina Fernandez to be jailed as Supreme Court upholds corruption conviction
The Supreme Court of Argentina has upheld former President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner's (2007–15) corruption conviction. The SC has also upheld the lifetime ban on holding public office. read more
Argentina's former President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner smiles to supporters at the Partido Justicialista headquarters in Buenos Aires on June 10, 2025. (Photo: AFP)
Argentina's highest court upheld a six-year prison sentence for former President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner in a ruling Tuesday that permanently banned her from public office over the corruption conviction that found she had directed state contracts to a friend while she was the first lady and president.
The explosive Supreme Court ruling left Fernández, Argentina's charismatic yet deeply divisive ex-leader, subject to arrest and sent her supporters pouring into the streets of Buenos Aires, Argentina's capital, and blocking major highways in protest.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
The court asked Argentina's security ministry to set up a detention center to hold 72-year-old Fernández. Her defense lawyer Carlos Beraldi told C5N, a television station in Buenos Aires, that he had requested Fernández be allowed to serve her sentence in house arrest given her age.
The ruling bars Fernández from running in this fall's Buenos Aires legislative elections just days after she launched her campaign.
Fernández, who dominated Argentine politics for two decades and forged the country's main left-wing populist movement known as Kirchnerism, after her and her husband, former President Néstor Kirchner, rejects the charges as politically motivated.
During Fernández's eight years in office (2007–2015), Argentina expanded cash payments to the poor and pioneered major social assistance programs. But her governments funded the unbridled state spending by printing money, bringing Argentina notoriety for massive budget deficits and sky-high inflation.
Critics blamed Argentina's years of economic volatility on Fernández's policies, and outrage over successive economic crises and the country's bloated bureaucracy helped vault radical libertarian President Javier Milei to the presidency in late 2023.
The ruling dealt a severe blow to Milei's opposition during a crucial midterm election year. He celebrated the ruling, writing on social media: 'Justice. Period.'
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Fernández was embroiled in multiple corruption scandals during her tenure. She was convicted in 2022 in this corruption case, which centered on 51 public contracts for public works awarded to companies linked to Lázaro Báez, a convicted construction magnate and friend of the presidential couple, at prices 20 per cent above the standard rate ally in a scheme that cost the state tens of millions of dollars.
The high court rejected Fernández's request for the court to review her prison sentence in March. In a resolution obtained by The Associated Press, the court said that the prison sentence 'does nothing more than to protect our republican and democratic system.'
The Kirchner governments carried out 'an extraordinary fraudulent maneuver' that harmed the interests of the government and resulted in the embezzlement of roughly $70 million at the current exchange rate, the resolution said.
Supporters of Fernández and her political movement blocked main roads into Buenos Aires and stormed the offices of Argentina's two main cable networks that are widely considered critical of the ex-leader, Channel 13 and Todos Noticias, smashing televisions, vandalizing cars and shattering windows. There were no injuries reported.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Fernández rejected the decision, calling the court justices 'puppets' of those wielding economic power in the country.
'They're three puppets answering to those ruling far above them,' she told supporters in a rousing speech outside her party's headquarters. 'It's not the opposition. It's the concentrated economic power of Argentina's government.'
Gregorio Dalbón, one of Fernández's lawyers, vowed 'to take this case to all international human rights organizations.'
Fernández has questioned the impartiality of the judges. She claims her defense didn't have access to much of the evidence and that it was gathered without regard to legal deadlines.
Fernández faces a series of other upcoming trials on corruption charges.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
30 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Justice Yashwant Varma case: Peer review is the proper channel
Arghya Sengupta begins his book Independence and Accountability of the Higher Indian Judiciary by juxtaposing the views of Jawaharlal Nehru and Justice Y K Sabharwal. Nehru upheld Parliament's supremacy, arguing that the judiciary could advise but not obstruct the legislative will in shaping the nation's future. In contrast, Justice Sabharwal underscored the judiciary's expanding role in securing good governance, highlighting how the Supreme Court has intervened in areas like environmental protection, electoral reform, and constitutional amendments to ensure the rule of law prevails. This tension reflects a fundamental shift. The recent disclosure of cash recovered from the official residence of Justice Yashwant Varma has triggered a flurry of reactions: Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar raised concerns about the absence of punitive outcomes following an internal inquiry and cast doubts on the legal sanctity of in-house procedures. Following intervention from the Rajya Sabha, the SC dropped its inquiry into the alleged hate speech made by Justice Shekhar Yadav, sitting judge of the Allahabad High Court, citing that the final authority lies with Parliament and the President. These instances beg the question: Who judges the judges? The judiciary forms one of the three pillars of a democracy and derives its authority from the Constitution. The outdated notion of legislative supremacy has now been replaced: The Supreme Court in Keshav Singh vs Speaker, Legislative Assembly (1965) and People's Union For Civil Liberties vs Union of India (2005) recognised that the Constitution is supreme. The Constitution provides strong safeguards for judicial independence, including security of tenure, fixed salaries charged to the Consolidated Fund, protection from discussion in legislatures, and immunity under laws like the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985. Provisions for the removal of high court and SC judges by Parliament on grounds of 'proven misbehaviour' or 'incapacity' under Articles 124 and 217 create an accountability mechanism. Under Article 124(5), Parliament enacted the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, which provides the procedures to investigate judicial misconduct. Further, on May 7, 1997, the SC's Full Court adopted the 'Restatement of Values of Judicial Life'. It authorises the Chief Justice to constitute an in-house committee to investigate allegations against judges of the higher judiciary. This was recognised in C Ravichandran Iyer vs Justice A M Bhattacharjee (1995). The VP, in one of his latest speeches, spoke of the need to revisit K Veeraswami vs Union of India (1991) in light of the controversy around Justice Varma's case. However, such arguments overlook the constitutional and legal procedures provided for investigating allegations against judges. The Constitution does not permit ad-hoc procedures in matters involving the higher judiciary. Even prior to the Constitution's enactment, the Government of India Act, 1935, provided for a judicial disciplinary committee comprising judges. After Independence, when then-MP Meghnad Saha complained against a judge, Lok Sabha Speaker G V Mavalankar refrained from immediate action. He sought the opinion of the CJI before proceeding. While drafting the Judges Inquiry Bill, 1964 under Article 124(5), eminent legal figures like C K Daphtary and G S Pathak emphasised that complaints against judges should originate from MPs, not the executive, and be submitted to the Speaker or Chairman. If accepted, a three-member judicial committee would investigate the charges. Only if the committee finds the judge guilty may Parliament initiate a debate; otherwise, the motion is dropped. This framework was upheld in Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability vs Union of India (1991), wherein the Court highlighted practices from countries like the US, Canada, and Australia, where initial investigations are conducted by a judicial body, with legislative involvement occurring later. In Veeraswami, the Court held that judges can be prosecuted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, but only with presidential sanction after consultation with the CJI. This ensures accountability and judicial independence. In Justice Varma's case, any investigation must be initiated through a motion in Parliament, followed by a judicial inquiry under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. As the Court held in the Sub-Committee case, such inquiries are quasi-criminal in nature and cannot be replaced by political or administrative processes without violating constitutional safeguards. Harry T Edwards, Chief Justice of Appeals for the District of Columbia, noted in a 1989 paper that 'the ideal of judicial independence is not compromised when judges are monitored and are regulated by their own peers'. The Supreme Court in A M Bhattacharjee noted that 'peer review' is in the best interest of judicial independence and in consonance with international practices. The Law Commission of India in its 195th Report recommended the Judicial (Inquiry) Bill 2005, establishing the National Judicial Council, which was to consist of five judges, with the CJI as chairman. The Commission noted that this practice of inquiry finds its roots in various international principles like the Siracusa Principles (1981) and the Latimer guidelines for the Commonwealth (1998). The judiciary, like any other institution, must be held accountable. But that accountability must be enforced within a constitutionally protected framework that ensures independence from political pressures. The rule of law demands not just that justice be done — but that it be done through proper channels, and equally for all. The writer is assistant professor, Jindal Global Law School
Deccan Herald
an hour ago
- Deccan Herald
Justice in the human context
In sparing a POCSO case convict from sentence, SC has sought meaning of justice outside the law
Hindustan Times
2 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Delhi: No trauma centre for Uphaar Cinema fire later victims, ₹60cr fine missing
Twenty-eight years after the Uphaar cinema fire claimed 59 lives and wounded over 100 others, the trauma centre promised in memory of the victims remains missing. Victims' families said the absence of the facility — despite ₹60 crore collected from Gopal Ansal and Sushil Ansal, cinema owners who were convicted in the case, nearly a decade ago — on the Supreme Court's orders underscores the indifference to justice and public safety. The trauma centre was to be built in west Delhi's Dwarka within two years of a 2015 SC directive, using fines paid by the Ansal brothers. The plan was clear: the Delhi government was to allocate at least five acres of land and construct a state-of-the-art trauma centre in one of the city's most accident-prone areas. Yet today, no foundation stone has been laid, and the ₹60 crore — now estimated to have grown to over ₹100 crore with interest — remains unaccounted for. 'For decades, we have fought a legal battle for only two things: one, to get justice for our children, and another, that the tragedy can help bring some change,' said Neelam Krishnamoorthy, whose children -- Unnati, 17, and Ujjwal, 13 -- were among the 59 who were killed in the fire in the south Delhi hall where Sunny Deol starrer Border was being screened. She leads the Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy (AVUT). 'We're not asking for favours. All we want is that the fine deposited by the Ansals be used to make the trauma centre, which will be very beneficial for the residents of Delhi and, in times of any incidents like this, can help save lives,' she said. 'AVUT members now fear that we are getting old, we do not know whether we will be here tomorrow or not, and so no one will be there to question the government. Hence, we are raising the issue and want the government to act on it,' she said. In a landmark judgment in August 2015, the Supreme Court, instead of sending the Ansals back to prison, ordered them to pay ₹30 crore each. The court directed the Delhi government to use this money to build a trauma facility in memory of the victims. The order called for a 'Victims of Uphaar Memorial Trauma Centre' with a dedicated burns ward and accident services. The money was deposited with the Delhi government in November 2015. Yet nearly 10 years later, the families say they have been met with silence and bureaucratic apathy. In multiple RTI queries filed in 2019 and again in 2024, departments including the Chief Secretary's office, the health ministry, the law department, and the Directorate General of Health Services responded saying that the information 'is not available' or 'does not pertain' to them. 'The state has neither allotted land nor offered any explanation,' said Shekhar Krishnamoorthy, another AVUT member who lost both children in the fire. 'We are left wondering whether anyone will be held accountable, or if time and delay will again erase the promise of justice.' AVUT has now approached the Supreme Court again, urging it to push for the implementation of its 2015 order. On April 22 this year, the court issued notice to the Delhi government, seeking a response. The next hearing is scheduled for July 16. HT reached out to an official in the chief minister's office for a response, but the official did not respond till the time of going to print. For the families, the centre is not merely symbolic. 'This is not just about memory,' Neelam said. 'This is about public health. This is about preventing the next Uphaar.'
