Government Petro appointed peace managers without documentary support from those involved

The Colombian government under President Gustavo Petro has faced renewed scrutiny over its peace policy after officials admitted they lacked documentary support for the designation of two individuals as peace facilitators. According to documents obtained by Semana, the Office of the Presidency confirmed on July 17 that it could not find supporting documentation for Resolution 043 of 2022, which named Luis Carlos Vélez, known as “el Mono,” and Jhon Jairo Galindo as peace managers under the guidance of the United Nations High Commissioner for Peace. This admission comes amid ongoing investigations into the legality of the designation, which was reportedly based on information provided by intelligence agencies. The resolution, issued in 2022, purported to authorize these individuals as facilitators of peace, despite their alleged ties to organized crime. The lack of formal records raises questions about the transparency and accountability of the process, particularly given the high-profile nature of the individuals involved. Luis Carlos Vélez, alias “el Mono,” was recently captured by military authorities in collaboration with the Special Investigations Unit (CTI) of the Attorney General’s office. He was detained in Chía, Cundinamarca, on July 24, accused of drug trafficking, production, possession, and conspiracy to commit crimes with the intent to facilitate narcotics trade. His arrest followed months of surveillance and coordination between law enforcement agencies, highlighting the continued efforts to dismantle criminal networks linked to the notorious group known as the Comandos de la Frontera. Vélez is believed to have been one of the trusted associates of Geovany Andrés Rojas, alias “Araña,” the leader of the Comandos de la Frontera, who is currently wanted for extradition. The capture of Vélez underscores the complex interplay between state security operations and the broader peace agenda pursued by the Petro administration. While the government has promoted dialogue and reconciliation with former combatants, the designation of individuals with criminal backgrounds as peace facilitators has drawn criticism from political opponents and legal experts. Political analysts and opposition figures have criticized the government’s approach, calling the peace policy a failure. They argue that the inclusion of individuals with documented links to violence undermines the credibility of the peace process and risks normalizing criminal behavior within the framework of official negotiations. This sentiment has gained traction among civil society groups and human rights organizations, which have called for greater oversight and transparency in the selection of peace mediators. The case of Resolution 043 also highlights internal challenges within the executive branch. The Office of the Presidency’s acknowledgment of missing documentation suggests potential procedural lapses or mismanagement in the handling of sensitive peace-related decisions. While the government maintains that the designation was based on intelligence assessments, critics argue that such decisions should be subject to rigorous verification and public disclosure to prevent abuse of power. As the investigation into the designation continues, the fate of other individuals listed in similar resolutions will likely come under increased scrutiny. Legal proceedings against Vélez and others implicated in the case may provide further insight into the extent of the government’s involvement in facilitating criminal activities under the guise of peace initiatives. Meanwhile, the broader implications for Colombia’s peace process remain uncertain, with calls for reform and accountability growing louder in both legislative and judicial circles.