Proceso 8000

Last updated

The 8,000 Process (from the Spanish : Proceso 8.000) is the unofficial name of the legal investigation for the events surrounding accusations about the Colombian Liberal Party candidate Ernesto Samper's 1994 campaign for President of Colombia being partially funded with drug money. 8,000 Process was the case number issued by the Prosecutor General's Office.

Contents

The Process formally ended in the mid-1990s.

The Financing of the Presidential Campaign and the Proceso 8000

The first thing to clarify is that the infiltration of illegal funds into Ernesto Samper Pizano’s presidential campaign is distinct from the so-called “Proceso 8000,” which took place in the same year Samper assumed the presidency. It was the media that, in their effort to pressure the new president to resign and subject him to both media and judicial condemnation, attributed the same case number to the investigation conducted by the Commission of Accusations against Samper. Ultimately, this led to the stigmatization of his government and overshadowed the social and economic policies he implemented during his administration.

Context of Ernesto Samper’s Presidency

It is important to understand the context in which Ernesto Samper became president. He was the first progressive candidate to win the presidency in the 1990s. At the time, drug traffickers had infiltrated multiple spheres of public life, including politics, with the aim of negotiating their interests. From the outset of his presidency, Samper had disagreements with the United States, as he had previously advocated for the legalization of marijuana in the 1980s. As president, he favored a version of Plan Colombia that prioritized social crop substitution rather than forced eradication, which was a key strategy in the failed War on Drugs.

The revelation of illegal money entering his campaign came as a shock to Samper after his electoral victory. While already serving as President of the Republic, he learned through the media and the infamous “narco-cassettes” that drug lords Migueland Gilberto Rodríguez Orejuela claimed that the Cali Cartel had financed both his campaign and that of his opponent, Andrés Pastrana Arango. Upon hearing the recordings, Samper immediately instructed Prosecutor Gustavo de Greiff to initiate an investigation.

The release of these recordings to Colombian journalists was orchestrated by Andrés Pastrana, the opposition politician whom Samper had defeated in the 1994 presidential election. The recordings had been obtained and edited by a team led by the DEA (Drung Enforcement Administration), with the approval of then-Minister of Defense Rafael Pardo. Initially, the tapes were intended to gather intelligence on both presidential candidates, but the focus was ultimately placed on possible winner, Ernesto Samper, whom they sought to link to the Cali Cartel from the outset.

The origin of the recordings remains uncertain, as they had already been edited bythe time Samper received them. To ensure transparency, he asked Pastrana—since they were both central figures in the matter—to demand that the Attorney General’s Office investigate the recordings. However, Pastrana refused to allow the control body to authenticate the tapes, hindering the investigative process. At that time, Prosecutor General Gustavo de Greiff could only investigate the recordings and the financing of Samper’s campaign, ultimately deeming the “narco-cassettes” inadmissible as evidence due to a lack of proper custody and signs of manipulation.

Campaign Financing

Regarding the financing of his campaign, Ernesto Samper learned about various irregularities through an extensive investigation conducted by his late brother, Juan Francisco Samper. Juan Francisco reconstructed financial records that had been under the control of campaign administrators Fernando Botero (campaign manager) and Santiago Medina (treasurer). His findings revealed the entry of suspicious funds and unregistered contributions that were absent from the official campaign accounts.

Investigations showed that Botero and Medina exploited a legal donation made by businessman Julio Mario Santo Domingo during Samper’s second-round campaign. Santo Domingo and Samper had agreed that, to ensure the legality of the contribution—which exceeded six million dollars—part of the funds would be deposited in the United States in an account belonging to Fernando Botero Angulo, the renowned Colombian painter and father of Fernando Botero Zea, the campaign manager.

The arrangement required that the donated dollars be converted into pesos for campaign use. Consequently, Samper was not surprised by funds entering through Panama, as this aligned with the agreement with Santo Domingo. However, in reality, the funds entering the campaign were illegal, sourced from a deal that Botero Zea and Medina had made with the Cali Cartel.

The scheme worked as follows: illegal funds from the Cali Cartel entered Colombia through one channel, while the legal dollars donated by Santo Domingo remained in the personal accounts of Fernando Botero Angulo, managed by his son, thecampaign manager. Ultimately, it was discovered that more money was withdrawn than was deposited—meaning that the funds provided by the Cali Cartel did not create a financial imbalance in the campaign, as the administrators embezzled more than they received.

The investigation also confirmed that there was never a formal agreement between the campaign and the Cali Cartel in exchange for contributions. Only the campaign administrators were aware of the funds, and Samper himself only learned of these facts alongside the rest of the country as the investigations unfolded. In 1996, Prosecutor Alfonso Valdivieso filed a complaint against Samper before the Commission of Accusations, following a change in testimony by Fernando Botero Zea. This complaint led to a formal charge, although the Prosecutor’s Office was not the competent body to judge the president. As a result, Valdivieso failed to uphold Samper’s presumption of innocence. Another procedural irregularity occurred during the House of Representatives’ investigation, where Samper’s lawyer was denied entry to the Commission of Accusations on the day of his trial, while the prosecutor continued acting as the accuser.

Following investigations by the Commission of Accusations, which, according to the National Constitution, is the proper judicial body for trying a sitting president, the House of Representatives acquitted Samper on June 12, 1996, with 111 votes in favor and 43 against. The records show that each congressman voted individually, without party or movement interference. Before reaching this decision, representatives had been threatened with charges of malfeasance, yet they proceeded with the vote, and the verdict was upheld by the High Courts.

Despite Samper’s acquittal, the media did not publicize the outcome with the same intensity as they had reported on the scandal. This allowed the bias against him—fueled from the outset by a media campaign—to persist. After his acquittal, an improved relationship with the United States was expected.However, diplomatic cables between the U.S. Embassy and the DEA suggest that they sought to maintain pressure on Samper, particularly because he continued to oppose the failed War on Drugs between 1996 and 1997.

The most severe U.S. retaliation came in June 1996 when they revoked Samper’s visa. The State Department spokesperson announced that it was a personal sanction due to the “entry of drug money into his campaign,” disregarding the Colombian Congress’s acquittal—an act that appeared politically motivated to further destabilize Samper’s government.

With the findings from judicial investigations, in his accountability speech before Congress on July 20, 1998, former President Samper acknowledged that the Cali Cartel had managed to infiltrate his campaign due to the complicity—judicially proven years later—of his campaign administrators, Fernando Botero and Santiago Medina.

The judicial system carried out its work, and in 2001, Botero was charged with aggravated theft and breach of trust. Sentence No. 22412, issued on January 24, 2007, confirmed Fernando Botero Zea’s conviction for aggravated theft with intent and breach of trust. Both cases demonstrated how the campaign funds had been criminally diverted for his own benefit.

In 2021, Andrés Pastrana also appeared before the Truth Commission to present his testimony. However, he provided no new information. He brought a letter from the Rodríguez Orejuela brothers—one he had already presented a decade earlier. This time, however, the brothers responded immediately, stating that Pastrana “seeks to portray himself as a victim of corruption while failing to acknowledge his own involvement in it.” They further asserted that the letter incriminating Samper was the result of coercion, in exchange for avoiding extradition.

Media Involvement

From the beginning of the scandal, journalists played a key role in disseminating evidence that the judiciary had not even deemed valid. Without allowing any defense, columnists and reporters launched a campaign to delegitimize Samper’s government, demand his resignation, and publish subjective opinions without professional ethics.

The most vocal opposition came from Revista Semana, which, according to journalist Elvia Acevedo, dedicated four out of five covers that year to “Proceso 8000”. Similarly, El Tiempo published 721 articles about the case against Samper.

In 1995, Alfonso Valdivieso reopened the campaign financing case and assigned it the now-infamous number 8000, despite the fact that it was originally linked to a separate investigation involving regional leaders who had received money from the Cali Cartel. However, Valdivieso decided to label it “8000,” allegedly based on documents he found during a raid on the Rodríguez Orejuela brothers, which he claimed contained evidence against Samper. From that moment on, both cases became conflated in the eyes of public opinion, as if they were one and the same.

The proceso 8000

This case number was assigned to the investigation into the regional political ties between politicians in Valle del Cauca and the Cali Cartel. The inquiries revealed a series of payments made by Guillermo Pallomari, the cartel’s accountant, to regional leaders and Liberal Party parliamentarians. Upon learning of these connections, Ernesto Samper ordered that the cases be transferred to the Attorney General’s Office.

Had there been any form of commitment between Samper and the Cali Cartel, as president, he would not have acted with such urgency in demanding an investigation from the Attorney General’s Office, nor would he have pursued and dismantled the Cali Cartel during his administration.

At the time, investigations were launched, but only Liberal Party parliamentarians linked to Samper’s campaign were implicated. There was no significant evidence linking Conservative Party candidates. However, years later, it was revealed that conservatives had also been involved. As the Rodríguez Orejuela brothers stated: “For the last 50 years of the past century, we helped both Liberals and Conservatives.”

The Proceso 8000 introduced the concept of negotiated justice, which at the time operated without clear legal boundaries. It relied heavily on securing plea bargains, leaking case files, validating anonymous accusations, and presenting selective or out-of-context information to create political, media, and judicial pressure—often at the expense of due process and the presumption of innocence.

Despite a lack of conclusive evidence and the fact that Congress—the legitimate body responsible for judging a sitting president—had declared Ernesto Samper innocent, Colombian media turned the case into what they called “the biggest political scandal in the country’s history.” In doing so, they disregarded ethical standards, prioritizing sensationalism over factual reporting.

Lawfare

The Proceso 8000 marked the first instance in Latin America of what is now known in Anglo-American law as lawfare—the use of judicial mechanisms and actors to wage legal wars aimed at stigmatizing, discrediting, and convicting prominent figures, particularly progressive leaders. It represents the politicization of justice and the use of law as a political weapon.

Timeline

June 1994

July 1994

August 1994

September 1994

December 1994

January 1995

February 1995

March 1995

April 1995

May 1995

June 1995

July 1995

August 1995

September 1995

See also

References

  1. Articulo Impreso Archivado EL HOMBRE DE LOS NARCOCASETES
  2. "Articulo Impreso Archivado EL 8.000 DIA A DIA". Archived from the original on 2008-10-09. Retrieved 2007-02-21.

Further reading