Colombia’s Supreme Court has opened a confidential preliminary inquiry into allegations that government contracts and jobs were exchanged for sexual favours in a case involving former president Gustavo Petro. Court president Mauricio Lenis said on Friday, 6 November, that the court would act independently and impartially. Petro denies the allegations. No charges have been filed, and the court has announced no findings.
The complaint was brought by Deicy Jimenez, a former government contractor who says she and about 30 other women received contracts in exchange for relationships with Petro. Her account forms the basis of the complaint, but the allegations have not been established as fact.
Lenis said some of the alleged conduct dated from Petro’s time in Congress and some from his presidency. Investigators will seek to establish which alleged acts may constitute criminal offences and who, if anyone, could be held responsible.
Complaint covers two periods of Petro’s career
The complaint alleges that access to public contracts and jobs was linked to sexual favours. Jimenez’s testimony places Petro at the centre of those allegations and says about 30 other women were involved. The number is part of her account, rather than a finding announced by the court.
The distinction between an allegation and an established finding is important at this stage. The opening of the preliminary inquiry means the complaint is being examined. It does not establish that contracts or jobs were traded for sex, or that Petro committed an offence.
Lenis’s account also makes clear that the inquiry is not confined to Petro’s presidency. The alleged events span his time as a member of Congress and his later period in the country’s highest office. The court has not announced findings about either period.
The inquiry is confidential, and the information provided about it does not establish the circumstances of individual contracts or appointments. The central question remains whether any of the conduct alleged in the complaint was criminal and whether responsibility can be established.
Petro denies using contracts to obtain favours
Petro has denied the allegations and said he never used a public contract to obtain favours. He has also said he will appear before the courts. His denial addresses the central claim that public resources or opportunities were used in exchange for personal favours.
The former president left office in August 2026 and now leads the opposition to President Abelardo de la Espriella. The inquiry therefore concerns both Colombia’s most recent former head of state and a leading opponent of the current president.
That political position gives particular importance to Lenis’s assurance that the court will act independently and impartially. His statement sets out the court’s approach, but it is not a conclusion about the complaint or a determination of Petro’s responsibility.
The legal and political questions remain distinct. Petro’s role in the opposition forms part of the context in which the case is being examined, but the inquiry concerns the alleged conduct described in the complaint. No criminal charges have been filed against him in this case.
Ombudsman seeks priority and witness protection
Colombia’s ombudsman, Iris Marin, asked the Supreme Court on 27 October to prioritise the case and protect witnesses. Her request preceded Lenis’s public assurance on Friday about the court’s independence and impartiality.
The request puts witness protection alongside the examination of the allegations. It does not itself establish that any offence occurred, and the supplied information does not say what protective measures, if any, have been put in place.
The Supreme Court is the competent authority for cases involving members of Congress. That is why the file sits with its investigative chamber rather than the ordinary prosecutor’s office. Lenis’s statement that some alleged events date from Petro’s congressional career explains that jurisdictional connection.
The presence of allegations relating to his presidency does not alter the stated location of the file. The investigative chamber is handling the preliminary inquiry, with the court yet to announce any findings on the conduct described by Jimenez.
Investigators must establish possible offences
The next task identified by Lenis is to determine which alleged acts may be criminal and who could be held responsible. Those questions remain open. The information supplied gives no timetable for the inquiry or for any further decision.
For now, the case rests on a complaint and testimony that Petro disputes. Jimenez’s allegations, Petro’s denial and Marin’s request for witness protection are all part of the record described so far. None amounts to a judicial finding.
The court’s handling of the complaint will be a test of its stated commitment to independence in a politically sensitive case. Its immediate responsibility is to examine the allegations without treating them as proven, while establishing whether there is a basis for criminal proceedings.
