On October 21, 2025, the Bogotá Superior Court delivered a verdict that has sent shockwaves through Colombia’s political landscape: former President Álvaro Uribe Vélez was acquitted of all charges of witness bribery and procedural fraud, overturning a first-instance conviction that had sentenced him to 12 years of house arrest just two months prior. The ruling, which comes after a 13-year legal saga, has reignited fierce debate about justice, power, and the enduring influence of uribismo in Colombian society.
The appellate decision, announced early Tuesday morning, was the outcome of a meticulous review by a three-judge panel led by Magistrate Manuel Antonio Merchán. The case had become a defining test for Colombia’s judiciary, as Uribe—the nation’s first former president to face criminal conviction in over half a century—stood accused of manipulating witnesses in cases tied to paramilitarism, a specter that continues to haunt the country’s political memory.
According to El País, the judges scrutinized five key incidents underpinning the original conviction, beginning with three alleged bribery cases involving the testimonies of former paramilitaries Carlos Enrique Vélez (known as Víctor), Eurídice Cortés (alias Diana), and Juan Guillermo Monsalve. The court found that each testimony was riddled with inconsistencies and contradictions. In the case of Vélez, the panel concluded that there was no evidence Uribe had intended to bribe him to alter his testimony. Merchán went so far as to order further investigation into Vélez for possible perjury, citing the “dishonesty” of the witness.
“The mere existence of a gift is not enough; illicit intent must be proven,” Judge Merchán stated during the review of the Monsalve case, emphasizing the need for concrete evidence of criminal intent rather than circumstantial benefit. The court also took aim at Judge Sandra Heredia, who had issued the initial conviction, criticizing her for introducing facts “unrelated to the accusation, violating the principle of congruence and the right to defense.”
The panel further addressed two procedural fraud allegations involving Uribe’s lawyer, Diego Cadena. One centered on efforts to persuade Monsalve to retract damaging statements against Uribe and to claim pressure from Senator Iván Cepeda. The other involved contacting drug trafficker Juan Carlos “El Tuso” Sierra in a U.S. prison to secure a letter exonerating Uribe and accusing Cepeda of witness manipulation. In both instances, the court determined that there was insufficient evidence to prove Uribe’s direct involvement or criminal responsibility. “Uribe’s knowledge of Cadena’s actions alone does not constitute bribery,” the magistrates stated, adding that the legal mandate did not imply criminally relevant obedience.
A pivotal factor in the acquittal was the court’s decision to nullify the wiretap evidence that had been central to the prosecution’s case. The wiretaps, which captured conversations between Uribe and others discussing witness testimony, were originally obtained in 2018 as part of a broader investigation into the “Cartel de la Toga,” a judicial corruption scandal. However, the court found that the surveillance had resulted from a typing error—authorizing interception of then-congressman Nilton Córdoba Manyoma but inadvertently capturing Uribe’s communications instead. While Judge Heredia had previously validated this evidence, the appellate court held firm: “The interception renders the information obtained illicit, null and void by law.”
President Gustavo Petro, a longtime critic of Uribe and his political movement, wasted no time in publicly denouncing the ruling. In a statement on X (formerly Twitter), Petro charged that the Bogotá Superior Court had “repeated history, contradicted the Supreme Court of Justice, and claimed that the wiretap carried out by a Supreme Court magistrate on a criminal—where Uribe’s voice can be heard talking about bribes—is privacy.” He went further, asserting, “This ruling covers up the history of paramilitary governance in Colombia—that is, the history of politicians who came to power allied with drug trafficking and unleashed genocide in Colombia.”
Petro’s response, reported by Colombia One, also referenced current political turmoil, including ongoing legislative investigations into alleged corruption at the National Fund for Teachers’ Social Benefits (Fomag), a scandal that has plagued his own administration since May 2024. He warned of “possible conspiracies” against his government, suggesting that some involved in the Fomag case were “already seeking a coup d’état.” Petro’s remarks underscored the high stakes and deep divisions that continue to define Colombian politics, with the Uribe trial serving as a flashpoint for broader debates about accountability, impunity, and the legacy of paramilitarism.
For Uribe and his supporters, the acquittal was a long-awaited vindication. The leader of the right-wing Democratic Center party has consistently denied wrongdoing and, in a move that surprised many, waived the statute of limitations deadline that could have allowed him to escape a final ruling. As El País noted, this decision extended the court’s window for judgment until October 2027, although the judges resolved the matter far more quickly.
The appellate ruling also highlighted the complex motivations of key witnesses. Merchán pointed out that both Monsalve and Vélez, incarcerated at the time, had “an interest in obtaining benefits under transitional justice.” The court criticized the initial conviction for “giving full credibility to adverse testimonies without evaluating underlying interests, suggesting a market for information.” The role of Senator Iván Cepeda, who had been accused by Uribe of witness tampering in 2012—a case later closed by the Supreme Court—was also cited as a factor that should have been weighed more carefully in the initial proceedings.
Despite the acquittal, the legal saga may not be entirely over. The Prosecutor’s Office or the victims have the right to appeal to the Supreme Court of Justice. However, as both Colombia One and El País report, legal experts estimate that such a process could take five to ten years, with little likelihood of overturning the acquittal. If admitted, the case would return to the very court where it began 13 years ago, closing a loop in one of Colombia’s most emblematic and polarizing legal battles.
The Uribe case has become much more than a matter of individual guilt or innocence. For some Colombians, Uribe remains a symbol of the fight against guerrilla violence and a bulwark of conservative order. For others, he is the embodiment of a political system tainted by paramilitarism and impunity. The sharp contrast in interpretations was evident in the aftermath of the ruling: while Uribe’s allies celebrated a triumph for justice, opposition voices decried what they see as enduring political influence shielding powerful figures from accountability.
As the dust settles on this latest chapter, Colombia finds itself once again grappling with questions about the integrity of its institutions, the reach of its political class, and the unfinished business of reckoning with its violent past. The acquittal of Álvaro Uribe may have closed one door, but it has opened many others—about the rule of law, the limits of power, and the ongoing struggle to define the future of Colombian democracy.
