ST. JOHN’S, Antigua, CMC – Recent events in the Central American country Guatemala underscore why organs of government in any country should have oversight bodies that have the authority to curb rogue behavior by officeholders. These events also demonstrate why legislation should be carefully drafted and reviewed before being passed into law.
Over the last year, the Public Ministry and the Attorney-General of Guatemala have pursued legal maneuvers to undermine the Semilla Party and its leader, Bernardo Arévalo, who won the country’s Presidency at runoff elections in August.
Because of a lag period between the elections and the installation of the new executive, Arévalo and his vice-presidential running mate, Karin Herrera, cannot take office until January 1 and January 14. His interregnum provided time for mischief by forces, including the Attorney General and the Public Ministry, to try to disqualify Arévalo and Herrera from assuming their elected positions.
These actions included undermining the rule of law and the rights of Guatemalans by arbitrary arrests and constant attempts to persecute opposition leaders and human rights defenders. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) has repeatedly expressed alarm that, mainly since the year 2021, there has been intense criminal prosecution and persecution by the Public Prosecutor’s Office against people who have performed work of particular relevance for democracy, such as journalists, justice operators, human rights defenders, student organizations, officials of electoral bodies and members of political parties”.
The Attorney-General, María Consuelo Porras, is protected by a sinister law prohibiting her removal from office, except upon conviction for an intentional crime. This protection is enshrined in Article 14 of the Public Ministry Law of 2016. But “intention” is strict to prove; it requires the almost impossible task of reading a person’s mind to determine that any action taken was “intentional” or planned. Armored with this protection, the Attorney-General and her Public Ministry have been waging what appears to be a campaign of abuse of the law to achieve their objectives, of which the principal one seems to be stopping the installation of Bernardo Arévalo and Karin Herrera as President and Vice President of the country.
In the course of all this, the Public Ministry has seized ballot boxes from the July and August elections, breaking the chain of custody in violation of the country’s electoral laws and contaminating the votes’ sanctity. Additionally, the Supreme Electoral Tribunal (TSE) magistrates have had their immunities removed. Three of them have fled the country in fear.
The Public Ministry claims that they sought to remove these immunities because of suspicion of corruption in purchasing a computer program to transmit preliminary results. However, on October 3 October 31 had certified the results of the elections, confirming the election of Arévalo and Herrera.
This issue of the Attorney-General’s unfettered power concerns many people, including civil society and human rights groups in Guatemala. It is of great concern to the Semilla party and the President-Elect and Vice President-elect, who recognize that even after they assume office on January 1 and January 14, there is little or nothing they can do about the behavior and power of the Attorney-General.
In October, the Semilla Party filed a case on this matter at the Constitutional Court, fearing that if Article 14 of the 2016 Public Ministry law is not declared unconstitutional, the Attorney-General and the Public Ministry “will continue illegal acts”. Their hopes were dashed on December December 20e Constitutional Court ruled that Article 24 is not unconstitutional, leaving the Attorney General free rein to implement policies and actions of her sole making.
After visiting Guatemala, as Chair of the Permanent Council of the Organization of American States (OAS), I advised the Council on December December 20Given the history of the Public Ministry’s arbitrary behavior, this case is one to which the Permanent Council may need to pay close attention, even after the transfer of executive power”.
Arévalo and Herrera look set to be installed as president and vice president on January 1 and January 14, the attorney-general and public ministry antics. Assurance of this was given on December December, 14onstitutional Court, which ruled that investigation by the Public Ministry cannot prevent the completion and results of the electoral process demanded that the Congress and its directing board are obliged to guarantee that all elected persons take their positions by the certification of the results made official by the Supreme Electoral Tribunal; warned all authorities that they must comply with the installation of the new executive; and stated that any persons who do not abide by the rulings will incur civil and criminal liabilities.
However, it is unlikely that the Attorney-General, who is legally accountable to no person or oversight body, will cease a campaign which, in the view of some in Guatemala, is, at best, self-righteous and, at worse, malicious. Her actions and those of the Public Ministry appear set to be a destabilizing force for the new executive from its first day in office.
But as the IACHR pointed out: “Respect for democracy entails ensuring the validity of a model of checks and balances in which the different state functions correspond to separate, independent and balanced bodies, to allow the necessary limits to the exercise of power and, in turn, to avoid arbitrariness.”
The member states of the OAS, which includes the countries of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), must maintain a vigilant eye on Guatemala in terms of trying to ensure that the absence of limits and oversight on the Attorney-Genral and the Public Ministry does not give a license to overturn the will of the electorate; the majority of whom voted for a new executive led by Arévalo and Herrera.
At risk is the validity of the people’s vote and democracy itself.
*(The writer is Antigua and Barbuda’s Ambassador to the United States and the Organization of American States. The views expressed are entirely his own)
and then 