They report that some 300,000 voting juries voted twice in the congressional elections

According to the Colombia Transparente initiative, nearly 300,000 voting juries in the last legislative elections of March 13 voted twice, once at the table where they were carrying out the oversight and the other on which they had their ballot papers registered.

On the RCN Radio station they consulted with the leader of this organization, Sergio Alzate, who assured that the bad performance was calculated.

“This was not spontaneous, the more than 600,000 voting juries deliberately, premeditated and planned by the registrar, were able to vote twice, that's how more than 300,000 of them did,” he said.

According to the oversight they carried out, it was found that those appointed to watch over the March 13 elections had paid at the tables where they were carrying out their work and at the table where they had their ballot papers registered.

“It is verified by the minutes that are contrasted with the appointing resolutions in which they vote as voting juries in a position. But in this same place and at another table, they vote as citizens,” he added at the station.

Meanwhile, the television news report Noticias RCN indicated that the evidentiary material for this double vote will be added to a complaint that had been filed with the Attorney General's Office, where they had already started the process in October 2021.

In addition, they argued that the software they used in the Registry Office allowed the profiling of juries to favor people close to registrar Alexander Vega.

“The jurors found that the national registrar himself sent the profile of the types of juries he would choose for congressmen and congressional candidates, so that people with those profiles would be selected and that, in turn, their elections favored them,” Alzate said in that news.

These allegations are known precisely when the Attorney General's Office announced a disciplinary investigation into Vega for the rest of the irregularities that would have occurred in the congressional elections.

Attorney General Margarita Cabello Blanco indicated that this decision was taken on the basis of repeated complaints expressed by different citizen and political sectors, and on the analysis of information carried out by the Public Prosecutor's Office, which correspond to the multiple anomalies that occurred in the midst of the legislative elections.

“The investigation seeks to determine whether the registrar could commit disciplinary offenses related to alleged irregularities in state selection and recruitment and a possible omission in voting control functions and in the training of juries,” the prosecutor explained through a video.

He also indicated that the watchdog opened a preliminary inquiry to some Registrar officials into the irregularities that had occurred in the processes of registration of ballots or the transfer of voting stations during election day, in which the new conformation of the Congress was defined as controversial issues. the single candidates of the political coalitions who will compete in the first presidential round.

On the other hand, he assured that the Elite team of the Public Prosecutor's Office, consisting of four delegated procurators, had already taken the first decisions regarding the 1,600 complaints received and 400 complaints, determining that 33 disciplinary proceedings were opened for possible irregularities committed by juries for voting, vote buying, constraint on the voter and errors in the registration of ballots.

The investigation by the Attorney General's Office seeks to determine whether its functions were exceeded by requiring biometric identification of voters, allegedly in ignorance of the legal provisions governing the matter, as well as irregularities in the selection and hiring of the company Indra Sistemas S.A. , because of the existence of situations that would jeopardize the transparency of the selection and procurement procedure of that company and in the event of an alleged conflict of interest”.

Likewise, the Public Prosecutor's Office seeks to identify whether there was an “omission in its functions in relation to decision-making aimed at avoiding irregularities and ensuring due vigilance and control in the pre-counting of votes, in view of its functional duties, as well as failure to perform its functions due to deficiencies , shortcomings or omissions in the training of voting juries.

KEEP READING: