Capitanich will appeal the prosecution and denounced a judicialization of the policy

Jorge Capitanich, a former governor of Chaco province and current national senator, has announced his intention to appeal the indictment against him in a case involving land allocations during his tenure. The charges stem from an investigation into the allocation of fiscal lands, which he claims were handled under strict administrative procedures with oversight from technical bodies and constitutional authorities. In a public statement, Capitanich rejected the accusations, asserting that his defense team had already requested the nullification of the charge. He described the judicial decision as “incongruent, inconsistent, and reckless.” He emphasized that the process would proceed with an appeal, stating, “As appropriate, we will appeal. We have expressed the nullity of the accusation and the inadmissibility of the prosecution.” Capitanich argued that each decree signed by a governor undergoes an administrative procedure involving oversight bodies with constitutional authority. He maintained that assigning criminal responsibility should take into account the prior review by provincial departments that examined the relevant files. He criticized the idea that lower-ranking officials, who handle specific control or processing tasks, could receive different procedural resolutions. He further denied that the land allocations constituted transfers of ownership. During his defense, Capitanich stated that the investigated lands remained registered under the name of the Province, making the initial accusation of completed property transfer inappropriate. Although the judge ruled out charges of money laundering, illicit enrichment, and misappropriation, the prosecution continued for alleged fraud against the Public Administration and other offenses related to the exercise of public function. Capitanich defended the policy implemented during his mandates, claiming it improved the situation of more than 8,000 producers in Chaco. He explained that these measures aimed to provide legal security to families residing in provincial territory and engaged in productive activities. “We promoted a land access policy that allowed progress in the development of over 8,000 Chaqueño producers,” he asserted. The Peronist leader also questioned the jurisdiction of the federal court to investigate administrative acts issued by provincial authorities. He believed that subjecting such decisions to federal judicial analysis undermines principles tied to provincial autonomy and the country's constitutional organization. The judge himself had indicated that the jurisdiction issue might be reconsidered after ruling out money laundering, which initially justified federal intervention. Capitanich concluded his remarks with criticism of using courts in political disputes. “I detest the judicialization of politics and the use of justice as a tool of persecution,” he declared. He assured that he would continue defending his actions in the appropriate judicial instances and added, “Ultimately, truth always triumphs.” The case has drawn attention due to its implications for the balance of power between federal and provincial jurisdictions, as well as the broader debate on how legal processes intersect with political accountability. Capitanich’s stance highlights ongoing tensions regarding the role of the judiciary in addressing governance issues, particularly in regions where land management and economic development policies are central to political discourse. His appeal is expected to bring further scrutiny to the legal framework governing administrative decisions made by provincial leaders.