Colombian former President Álvaro Uribe is sentenced to 12 years house arrest for bribery
The sentence, which Uribe said will be appealed, followed a nearly six-month trial in which prosecutors presented evidence that he attempted to influence witnesses who accused the law-and-order leader of having links to a paramilitary group in the 1990s.
'Politics prevailed over the law in sentencing,' Uribe said after Friday's hearing.
Uribe, 73, has denied any wrongdoing. He faced up to 12 years in prison after being convicted Monday.
His attorney had asked the court to allow Uribe to remain free while he appeals the verdict. Judge Sandra Heredia on Friday said she did not grant the defense's request because it would be 'easy' for the former President to leave the country to 'evade the imposed sanction.' Heredia also banned Uribe from holding public office for eight years and fined him about $776,000.
Ahead of Friday's sentencing, Uribe posted on X that he was preparing arguments to support his appeal. He added that one must 'think much more about the solution than the problem' during personal crises.
The appeals court will have until early October to issue a ruling, which either party could then challenge before Colombia's Supreme Court.
The former President governed from 2002 to 2010 with strong support from the United States. He is a polarising figure in Colombia, where many credit him for saving the country from becoming a failed state, while others associate him with human rights violations and the rise of paramilitary groups in the 1990s.
Heredia on Monday said she had seen enough evidence to determine that Uribe conspired with a lawyer to coax three former paramilitary group members, who were in prison, into changing testimony they had provided to Ivan Cepeda, a leftist senator who had launched an investigation into Uribe's alleged ties to a paramilitary group.
Uribe in 2012 filed a libel suit against Cepeda in the Supreme Court. But in a twist, the high court in 2018 dismissed the accusations against Cepeda and began investigating Uribe.
Martha Peñuela Rosales, a supporter of Uribe's party in the capital, Bogota, said she wept and prayed after hearing of the sentence. 'It's an unjust sentence. He deserves to be free,' she said.
Meanwhile, Sergio Andrés Parra, who protested against Uribe outside the courthouse, said the 12-year sentence 'is enough' and, even if the former President appeals, 'history has already condemned him.' During Uribe's Presidency, Colombia's military attained some of its biggest battlefield victories against Latin America's oldest leftist insurgency, pushing the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia into remote pockets and forcing the group's leadership into peace talks that led to the disarmament of more than 13,000 fighters in 2016.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
‘Unconstitutional': Himachal high court strikes down clause regularising govt land encroachments
Shimla: In a ruling with wide ramifications, the Himachal Pradesh high court on Tuesday struck down Section 163-A of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1952, which allowed the state govt to frame rules for regularisation of encroachments on govt land, calling it "manifestly arbitrary and unconstitutional". A division bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Bipin Chander Negi observed that by "condoning the illegal acts of the violators," the state was treating "lawbreakers equal to those persons who abide by the law". Section 163-A was added to the Act in 2002 during the Prem Kumar Dhumal-led BJP govt's tenure. The court directed the state govt to remove all encroachments by Feb 28, 2026, and to initiate suitable proceedings against the encroachers. The bench noted that there are approximately 57,549 cases of land encroachment across the state, covering an area of around 10,320 hectares (1.23 lakh bighas). The court also vacated any existing stays on the removal of these encroachments. Disposing of a petition filed by one Punam Gupta and others in 2002, the court directed the state govt to take action against the revenue authorities in whose jurisdiction land has been permitted to be encroached upon. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like The Most Beautiful Female Athletes Right Now Undo "It promotes dishonesty and encourages violation of law. Significantly, no action stands taken against the erring officials, who, in connivance, allowed such encroachments to happen throughout the state. It is not that thousands of encroachments came up overnight. The officials failed to discharge their duties. The functionaries adopted an ostrich-like attitude and approach," observed the bench. Taking into account the magnitude of encroachments on govt land, the court directed that the state govt should consider an amendment in the law pertaining to "criminal trespass" by bringing it in consonance with the amendments made in Uttar Pradesh, Karnataka, and Orissa. The state govt was also directed to make changes in the law to make municipal office bearers, as well as executive officer or commissioner, accountable to report encroachments and take action for their removal, or face consequences for violation of duty. 'Adverse possession law not applicable to govt land' The high court also reminded the state govt of a Supreme Court judgment in "State of Haryana vs Mukesh Kumar," urging it to consider removing a provision from Section 163 of the HP Land Revenue Act. This provision had allowed encroachers to claim title to govt land through the law of adverse possession. The bench clarified that adverse possession pleas would not be available in cases where land has been acquired for a public purpose. In such instances, the encroacher will not only face removal but also be liable to pay use and occupation charges, as well as for any benefits derived from the property. BOX 'Sec 163-A amendment violates edifice of law' The division bench held, "If the impugned provision (Section 163 A) is permitted to remain in the statute, it would defeat the very purpose for which the statute was created." The court observed that in the Act, there exists Section 163, whereby a detailed mechanism has been provided for the removal of encroachment from govt land. But the amendment in the Act by adding Section 163-A violates the very edifice of the principal statute and allows the regularisation of the encroachment. "It is destructive of the aim and object of the parent statute; it defeats its laudable object; it defies the constitutional provisions; it is demonstratively and excessively contradictory and mutually destructive," said the bench. MSID:: 123119798 413 |
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Telangana high court sets aside remand order for violating 24-hour norm
Hyderabad: Justice N Tukaramji of Telangana high court on Tuesday set aside the judicial remand of a man arrested by the Malakpet police in a case, holding that he was produced before the magistrate beyond the mandatory 24-hour limit prescribed under the Criminal Procedure Code (Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, BNSS). The judge pronounced the order while allowing the criminal revision case filed by Syed Dastagir, a student-cum-Rapido captain from Edi Bazar in Hyderabad. The judge ruled that the VII additional chief judicial magistrate, Hyderabad, had mechanically authorized the custody of the petitioner — arrayed as accused number 8 in FIR No. 252 of 2025 — without examining procedural lapses and statutory safeguards. The petitioner was arrested from his residence at 10:15pm on July 7 and produced before court at 11:35pm the next day, exceeding the 24-hour limit by about 80 minutes. The delay, the court held, rendered the remand illegal in terms of Sections 57 and 167 of the CrPC (BNSS). You Can Also Check: Hyderabad AQI | Weather in Hyderabad | Bank Holidays in Hyderabad | Public Holidays in Hyderabad The court noted that the alleged offences under Sections 318(4) and 204 read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, were punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years. Citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Arnesh Kumar Vs State of Bihar and provisions of Section 35(3) BNSS, the judge said police ought to have issued a notice of appearance instead of arresting the petitioner. Justice Tukaramji observed that the magistrate's order failed to record judicial reasons addressing the legality of the arrest, the delay in production, or compliance with statutory requirements — amounting to non-application of mind. Setting aside the July 8 remand order, Justice Tukaramji directed the magistrate to secure the petitioner's immediate release. Within a week of release, he must execute a personal bond of 10,000 with two sureties for a like sum. The petitioner was directed to cooperate with further proceedings, failing which coercive steps could be taken.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Abstinence from duty by presiding officer on strike call by bar assn illegal: HC
Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court has said abstinence from professional duty by presiding officers on a call given by the bar association was illegal and those officials who comply with such strike resolutions could face misconduct charges. While making these observations, Justice JJ Munir issued a show cause notice to the sub divisional magistrate (SDM), Koil, Aligarh for adjourning a case in pursuance of a resolution of the local bar association of Aligarh calling upon the lawyers to abstain from judicial work. "Accepting such a strike resolution may amount to misconduct on the part of the presiding officer and could invite a recommendation for disciplinary action, including removal from office," the court said in its order dated July 28. The case pertains to a restoration application filed by one Satyapal Singh before the SDM under section 38(2) of the UP Revenue Code, 2006. The case was adjourned on July 25, 2025, since the advocates were abstaining from work on that day and the matter was fixed for July 28. Coming down heavily on the conduct of the SDM, the court observed: "It is well settled that any kind of abstinence from professional duty on a call by the bar association is absolutely illegal. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 11 Foods That Help In Healing Knee Pain Naturally | Zen Life Mag Undo If no one appeared to press the restoration application and there was a resolution by the Bar, the court could not have sided with the resolution and fallen foul of the law laid down by the Supreme Court." The court also referred to certain Supreme Court decisions in the cases of Ex-Capt Harish Uppal v. Union of India and another 2003 and many others. The court also sought full particulars of the bar association, its president and secretary in the affidavit on whose call the advocates abstained from their duties. The matter will now be heard on August 6.
