A president claiming to govern transparently cannot simultaneously threaten law enforcement
In the waning days of August, a Peruvian police colonel stood before an internal tribunal not for wrongdoing in the ordinary sense, but for having followed a judge's order into the most symbolically charged address in the republic. Colonel Harvey Colchado's disciplinary hearing before the National Police Inspector General in Lima's Surquillo district was less a legal proceeding than a referendum on institutional independence — a test of whether those who investigate power can be made to answer to it. At stake was not merely one officer's career, but the question every democracy must eventually face: who guards the guardians when the guarded hold the levers of discipline.
- A disciplinary complaint filed by President Castillo's own legal team transforms a court-authorized raid into a political weapon aimed at the officer who led it.
- The Interior Ministry's earlier attempt to quietly remove Colchado from his anti-corruption post collapsed under public pressure, but the campaign against him simply shifted to a new arena.
- Castillo's defense is pursuing not just Colchado but also the judge and prosecutor who authorized and executed the raid — a sweeping effort to delegitimize the entire operation.
- Congress president Lady Camones publicly denounced the disciplinary action as intimidation, announcing that lawmakers would demand the government account for its motives.
- The hearing now forces Peru's police institution to declare, in effect, whether judicial orders or executive displeasure holds greater authority over its officers.
On a Wednesday morning in late August, Colonel Harvey Colchado arrived at the Walter Rosales Police Complex in Surquillo to answer for a raid that had become one of the sharpest edges of Peru's political crisis. Three weeks earlier, he had led an operation into the Presidential Palace in search of Yenifer Paredes, the president's sister-in-law — an operation authorized by a judge and carried out alongside a prosecutor. Now, President Pedro Castillo's legal team had filed a formal complaint demanding not merely his reassignment, but his forced retirement.
Colchado was not a peripheral figure. He headed the special anti-corruption task force working alongside prosecutors to investigate cases tied to the Castillo administration, which made him a natural target for a government under legal siege. Attorney Eduardo Pachas, leading Castillo's defense, argued that entering the palace had violated presidential immunity and that the residence contained classified national security materials. The complaint extended beyond Colchado to include the authorizing judge and the executing prosecutor — a coordinated effort to discredit everyone involved in the operation.
The hearing arrived against a backdrop of prior pressure. Weeks earlier, Interior Minister Willy Huerta had formally requested Colchado's removal from the task force, only to reverse course publicly when the move drew swift political opposition. The disciplinary proceeding represented a second front in the same campaign.
Congress president Lady Camones did not stay silent. She condemned the action as a pattern of intimidation against those investigating the administration, called it reprehensible, and announced that Congress would demand answers from the government. Her argument was pointed: a president who claims transparency cannot simultaneously punish law enforcement for obeying the judiciary.
What unfolded in that Surquillo hearing room was a collision between two rival claims on institutional authority — one rooted in executive prerogative, the other in judicial mandate. The disciplinary outcome would carry a meaning far larger than one colonel's fate, signaling whether Peru's police could hold its ground against the very administration it was tasked with investigating.
Colonel Harvey Colchado walked into the Walter Rosales Police Complex in Surquillo on a Wednesday morning in late August, summoned to answer for a raid that had become a flashpoint in Peru's political crisis. Three weeks earlier, on August 9th, Colchado had led an operation into the Presidential Palace searching for Yenifer Paredes, the president's sister-in-law. Now he faced a disciplinary hearing before Segundo Leoncio Mejía Montenegro, the newly appointed Inspector General of the National Police, over allegations filed by President Pedro Castillo's legal team.
Colchado was no ordinary police officer. He headed the special task force working alongside prosecutors to investigate corruption cases tied to the Castillo administration—a position that had made him central to the government's own legal troubles. The raid itself was authorized by a judge and executed by a prosecutor, but Castillo's defense team, led by attorney Eduardo Pachas, argued that Colchado had violated presidential immunity by entering the palace. They demanded more than his removal from the task force; they wanted him forced into retirement as a severe disciplinary sanction. In their formal complaint, they emphasized that the president's residence contained classified documents and materials related to national security.
The timing of the hearing reflected deeper institutional turbulence. Just days before Colchado's appearance, the Interior Ministry had attempted to remove him from his position entirely. On July 27th, Interior Minister Willy Huerta had sent a formal request to the prosecutor's office asking that Colchado be replaced by someone from within the police's own investigative apparatus. The request faced immediate and forceful political pushback. Facing opposition, Huerta reversed course publicly, announcing that Colchado would remain in his role. Yet the pressure had not ceased; now the disciplinary process was underway.
Castillo's legal strategy extended beyond Colchado. Pachas made clear that the president's office was also seeking sanctions against the judge who authorized the raid—Raúl Justiniano—and the prosecutor who executed it, Hans Aguirre. The target was anyone involved in the operation. Yenifer Paredes, the woman at the center of the search, had been ordered held in preventive detention for thirty months, a decision that had only intensified the administration's hostility toward those pursuing the case.
The political establishment took notice. Lady Camones, president of Congress, publicly condemned the move against Colchado as intimidation. She characterized the disciplinary action as part of a pattern of pressure the administration was applying to those who investigated it, comparing it to actions taken against labor leaders. Camones announced that Congress would demand answers from the government about its motives in seeking Colchado's forced retirement. She called the action "reprehensible in every respect," arguing that a president claiming to govern transparently could not simultaneously threaten law enforcement for following judicial orders.
Colchado's presence at the hearing represented a collision between two competing claims on institutional authority. The president's team argued that the palace raid had crossed a constitutional line. Colchado and his supporters argued that he had simply executed a lawful order from the judiciary. The outcome of the disciplinary process would signal whether Peru's police force could maintain independence from political pressure, or whether the administration could reshape the institutions investigating it.
Notable Quotes
Reprochable in all its aspects. If things must be done as they should be, the president must show clear signs of transparency and actions subject to law—not intimidation.— Lady Camones, Congress president
The request is against whoever ordered and whoever executed the raid.— Eduardo Pachas, Castillo's attorney, on the government's broader sanctions demand
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why did Castillo's team focus their complaint on Colchado rather than the judge or prosecutor who actually authorized and ordered the raid?
Because Colchado was the visible face of the operation—the one who walked into the palace. But more importantly, he represented something larger: the special task force investigating the administration itself. Removing him would weaken the entire anti-corruption effort.
The Interior Ministry had already tried to remove Colchado in July. Why did that fail?
Political opposition. The move was too transparent, too obviously an attempt to obstruct an investigation. When it became public, Congress and other political actors pushed back hard enough that the government had to back down. But they found another route: the disciplinary process.
Is the disciplinary hearing a legitimate process, or is it retaliation?
That's the question everyone was asking. On paper, it's a formal procedure. But the context matters—the timing, the pressure from the Interior Ministry weeks before, the demand for forced retirement rather than a standard sanction. It looks like the same goal pursued through a different channel.
What does Castillo's argument about classified documents in the palace actually mean?
It's a constitutional argument. They're saying the palace is a protected space, that presidential immunity extends to the building itself. Whether that argument holds legally is separate from whether it's being used as a shield against investigation.
If Colchado is forced out, what happens to the corruption cases?
The task force continues, but it loses its most visible and apparently most aggressive investigator. The message sent would be clear: investigate the president at your own risk.