[1]This guest post is from Jose Quiñones, Partner at Qil+4 Abogados in Guatemala.
Concern has been raised by the Guatemalan compliance community regarding the decision by the Guatemalan President not to renew the UN International Commission Against Impunity (CiCiG) and the subsequent prohibition for the current commissioner to return to Guatemala (shortly after he left the country). The decision unmasks a deep polarization that still prevails within the population, and this feud and intransigence impede an effort to target corruption as a means to nurture a stable economy and a stronger political system.
CiCiG has operated in Guatemala since 2007 and its mandate would expire in September 2019. Since 2015 the Commission has increased its exposure and brought forward accusations against the then serving Vice-President and President, Congressmen, Ministers, Ex-Presidents, Presidential Candidates and Business People linked to corruption cases.
Many see the recent decision by President Jimmy Morales as an act of defiance and a desperate measure to halt the ongoing investigation against him for illegal political financing and against some members of his family for minor corruption and tax fraud. The President has strongly denied this in a press conference. Others have questioned the fact that cases have been directly brought against well-known members of the business community while other opaque actors remain at large. The fact that some have remained detained for years awaiting trial and judgment has been raised as a special concern that convictions come more through public shaming from CiCiG´s awaited press conferences and preventive detentions than from fair trial judgments.
The President’s appearance in front of dozens of members of the military leadership at the press conference announcing the non-renewal of CiCiG, as well as the presence of armoured jeeps at CiCiG´s headquarters, has been criticized as ill-conceived by some, and a return to the military rule in the 80s by others.
Somewhat unexpected is the fact that the President seems not to have acted alone in the decision. Before an order was issued prohibiting the return to Guatemala of the current Commissioner, some political figures and business people expressed acquiescence to the decision and welcomed a transition of authority from the Commission to the internal prosecutor’s office. Over time, support for CiCiG in professional and business circles has waned, just as the Commission’s work intensified and moved from graft and blatant appropriation of public funds to facilitation payments and undeclared political campaign contribution cases. Public opinion in conservative circles shifted from full support for CiCiG to weariness and skepticism and finally to outright opposition. The President has even tried to gain support by alluding to Christian values, claiming CiCiG has supported initiatives that clash with such values, another indicator of the division that prevails among urban dwellers.
It is true that much can be said about case selection and methods used by CiCiG. At the same time, it is unquestionable that the level of prosecution and awareness raised in the last 24 months has not been seen in Guatemala in recent history. Despite the many cases that have been brought, the existing corruption networks that have been consolidating for the past 25 years still pose a strong defense and will require continued pressure in order for the anti-corruption campaign to have a lasting effect. Hopefully, CiCiG critics do not support a return to a state of rampant corruption.
Internationally, CiCiG gained support as a novelty experiment that could be replicated as an effective anti-corruption system for grave cases. Locally, it secured support from most of the printed press, a few politically active business people, and several activists, as well as limited support from some members of the Constitutional Court that have been increasingly questioned for their involvement in matters beyond constitutional tutelage. But there has been a lack of grassroots support often necessary to foster a national change against a culture of corruption. To most, this anti-corruption movement has been a valuable but foreign effort, involving some genuinely motivated actors, as well as others taking a more opportunistic and political approach, with the effect of alienating part of the population and thwarting local support for CiCiG.
A general question remains as to whether any thought has been given by the President or his advisors on how to bring about a successful exit strategy that will appease international and local concerns. Skirmishes continue with Congress easing penalties for illegal campaign financing (in hopes that they will apply retroactively) while CiCiG has brought a new case against an Ex-Minister of the Interior for the torture and execution of recaptured escaped convicts back in 2005, a case that most Guatemalans thought closed when he was acquitted in Spain, and that many see as politically charged and not a top priority for the country with elections coming up in 2019. A thin reform to electoral laws will probably be unable to contain the pressure from opaque economic groups in an electoral system that relies on expensive campaigns that appeal to basic sentiments of millions of voters that lack a formal education.
Our hope is that the strong support for the anti-corruption effort remains so that this may pressure a compromise in re-establishing a permanent, well-grounded professional system, perceived and respected as unbiased in combating corruption, independent from political pressure, and effective in redirecting the country to the right track. Efforts to bring to life the original CiCiG agreement lasted many months and included abundant political pressure, so perhaps the following chapters should realistically focus more on building a next-generation CiCiG.
The opinions expressed in this post are those of the author in his or her individual capacity and do not necessarily represent the views of anyone else, including the entities with which the author is affiliated, the author`s employers, other contributors, FCPAméricas, or its advertisers. The information in the FCPAméricas blog is intended for public discussion and educational purposes only. It is not intended to provide legal advice to its readers and does not create an attorney-client relationship. It does not seek to describe or convey the quality of legal services. FCPAméricas encourages readers to seek qualified legal counsel regarding anti-corruption laws or any other legal issue. FCPAméricas gives permission to link, post, distribute, or reference this article for any lawful purpose, provided attribution is made to the author and to FCPAméricas LLC.
© 2018 FCPAméricas, LLC