The foundation served a political purpose during the AUC's demobilization
Ten days before Colombia's presidential runoff, a courtroom became the latest battlefield in a country still reckoning with the long shadow of its paramilitary past. Leftist candidate Iván Cepeda filed criminal charges against his right-wing rival Abelardo de la Espriella, alleging ties to the AUC paramilitary network, money laundering, and crimes against humanity stretching back to the early 2000s. The accusations arrive not merely as legal instruments but as a referendum on historical memory itself — on whether a nation can hold its political class accountable for the violence that shaped it. With polls showing De la Espriella ahead, the question is whether justice and electoral calculus can occupy the same moment without consuming each other.
- With only ten days until the June 21 runoff, Cepeda's criminal filing detonated inside an already polarized campaign, introducing allegations of terrorism financing and crimes against humanity into the final stretch.
- The charges are specific and layered: a paramilitary-linked foundation, a bribe to silence a former commander, land purchased from narco-connected figures, and alleged judicial corruption to protect AUC leaders from prosecution.
- De la Espriella struck back immediately, calling the filing political theater and accusing Cepeda of narco-politics — pointing to suspiciously high vote totals in departments associated with drug trafficking and armed groups.
- Polls released the same night showed De la Espriella leading 52.2 percent to 44.5 percent, framing the charges as either a last-ditch maneuver by a trailing candidate or a legitimate reckoning arriving too late.
- Cepeda escalated further by petitioning the International Criminal Court, warning that if Colombian justice again fails to investigate, the case must be carried beyond national borders.
Ten days before Colombia's presidential runoff, Iván Cepeda walked into a courtroom and filed criminal charges against his rival Abelardo de la Espriella, accusing him of spending decades entangled with the AUC — one of Colombia's most brutal paramilitary networks. The charges included conspiracy, terrorism financing, and illicit enrichment, and they landed in the middle of an already fractured campaign like something long buried finally breaking the surface.
Cepeda, a senator aligned with President Gustavo Petro, presented six specific allegations. He claimed De la Espriella had co-founded a nonprofit called the Peace Initiatives Foundation alongside AUC leaders in the early 2000s, using it as a political vehicle during the paramilitaries' demobilization — including the selection of congressional candidates. He linked De la Espriella directly to former paramilitary chief Salvatore Mancuso, describing him as a childhood friend who helped run the foundation.
The accusations grew more granular from there. Cepeda alleged De la Espriella had bribed a former paramilitary commander to stay silent during the Justice and Peace demobilization process, purchased land from a relative of a narco-paramilitary figure near a known AUC operational hub, and helped arrange judicial bribes to secure reduced sentences for paramilitary leaders — including allegedly facilitating the appointment of a former attorney general who would then shield them from prosecution.
De la Espriella dismissed it all as political theater, firing back on social media with accusations of his own: that Cepeda was running cover for narco-politics, pointing to unusually high vote totals in drug-trafficking departments. He had won the first round with 43.78 percent to Cepeda's 9.7 million votes, and polls released that same night showed him leading the runoff 52.2 to 44.5 percent.
Cepeda also petitioned the International Criminal Court, arguing that Colombian justice had repeatedly failed to examine these crimes against humanity — atrocities that displaced hundreds of thousands and killed tens of thousands during the country's internal conflict. Whether the charges would move voters or dissolve into the noise of a polarized final week remained the open and urgent question.
Ten days before Colombia's presidential runoff, leftist candidate Iván Cepeda walked into a courtroom with accusations that his rival, right-wing candidate Abelardo de la Espriella, had spent decades entangled with paramilitary organizations responsible for some of the country's darkest crimes. The charges—conspiracy to commit aggravated crimes, terrorism financing, and illicit enrichment—landed like a grenade in an already fractured election.
Cepeda, a senator from the Historical Pact party aligned with President Gustavo Petro, laid out six specific allegations. He claimed De la Espriella had co-founded and led a nonprofit called the Peace Initiatives Foundation in the early 2000s alongside leaders of the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia, the AUC, one of the country's most notorious paramilitary networks. The foundation, Cepeda asserted, served a political purpose during the AUC's demobilization period—including the selection of congressional candidates. He presented charts and documents linking De la Espriella to exparamilitary chiefs, most notably Salvatore Mancuso, whom he described as a childhood friend who helped administer the foundation.
The allegations grew more specific and damning. Cepeda claimed De la Espriella had offered bribes to a former paramilitary commander known as Juancho Dique to keep silent during the demobilization process that saw roughly 30,000 AUC members pass through Colombia's Justice and Peace framework. He alleged De la Espriella had purchased a piece of land worth approximately $200,000 from a relative of a narco-paramilitary figure known as Comandante Barbie—property located near a site identified as a paramilitary operational hub between 1996 and 2006. Another former paramilitary, Juan Carlos Sierra, had accused De la Espriella of demanding around a million dollars to arrange bribes to the courts in exchange for reduced sentences. Cepeda also claimed De la Espriella had helped funnel bribes to secure the appointment of a former attorney general, Mario Iguarán, who would then shield paramilitary leaders from justice.
De la Espriella dismissed the entire filing as political theater. The lawyer and ultraright candidate, whose Defenders of the Homeland movement had captured 10.3 million votes in the first round—43.78 percent compared to Cepeda's 9.7 million—fired back on social media with his own accusation. He claimed Cepeda was manufacturing a smokescreen to hide what he called narco-politics: an alleged alliance with criminals who had delivered unusually high vote totals in three departments known for drug trafficking and paramilitary activity. He characterized the charges as the only word Cepeda knew how to speak: "paramilitary."
The timing was explosive. Polls released the night of Cepeda's filing showed De la Espriella leading the June 21 runoff with 52.2 percent support to Cepeda's 44.5 percent. The accusations, rooted in Colombia's decades-long internal conflict and the paramilitaries' documented role in displacing hundreds of thousands and killing tens of thousands, had the potential to reshape the final stretch of the campaign—or to be seen as a desperate move by a trailing candidate. Cepeda also petitioned the International Criminal Court to investigate, arguing that Colombian justice had failed to properly examine these crimes against humanity. The question now hung over the election: whether these allegations would matter to voters, or whether they would be absorbed into the noise of a polarized campaign in its final days.
Notable Quotes
De la Espriella played the role of being financed by and financing paramilitary groups, and it remains to be clarified whether he was part of these structures.— Iván Cepeda
You entered into losses, Cepeda—I reported narco-politics to the U.S. government; your reaction is to accuse me of the only word that comes out of your mouth: paramilitary.— Abelardo de la Espriella (paraphrased)
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why file charges now, ten days before the vote, rather than months ago when you might have had more time to build a case?
Because the evidence was still being gathered, and because the public needed to know who they were actually voting for. This isn't about the election cycle—it's about accountability for crimes that happened twenty years ago and were never properly investigated.
De la Espriella says you're making this up to distract from your own problems. How do you answer that?
I have documents. I have testimony from people who were inside these structures. The foundation existed. The land purchase happened. These aren't opinions—they're facts that can be verified.
But you're trailing in the polls. Doesn't that make people wonder if this is just a last-ditch effort?
It might. But the alternative is staying silent about what I believe is true, and that's not acceptable when we're talking about crimes against humanity.
What happens if you lose and these charges go nowhere?
Then I've asked the International Criminal Court to step in. If Colombian justice won't do its job, someone has to.
And if you win?
Then we investigate properly, with resources and independence, and let the evidence speak for itself.