Mexico's federal prosecutor has reopened an investigation into a 2019 contract with Next Energy and cleared Governor Teresa Jiménez of any involvement.
The move signals a renewed effort by the Fiscalía General de la República to hold former municipal leaders accountable for potential financial misconduct. This case centers on the failure of the municipality to receive services after signing a formal agreement, raising questions about the disappearance of public funds.
Investigators are currently focusing on five [2] former municipal officials of Aguascalientes [1]. The probe examines the specifics of the contract signed in 2019 [1], which allegedly saw the local government commit to an agreement without the contracted services ever being delivered [2].
While Governor Jiménez, who previously served as mayor, has been exculpated by the prosecutor, other legal figures remain entangled in the fallout. The dossier notes a 2023 [1] accusation involving Alejandro Hertz Manero, a former federal prosecutor, though the current reopening of the Next Energy case focuses on the operational failure of the 2019 contract [2].
The investigation was officially reopened in 2026 [2] to determine how the contract was approved and why the services were never rendered. The federal prosecutor is reviewing the actions of the five [1] officials to identify if criminal negligence or corruption played a role in the transaction.
Authorities have not yet announced formal charges against the former officials, but the reopening of the case suggests that new evidence or legal avenues have emerged to challenge the original handling of the 2019 [1] agreement.
“Governor Teresa Jiménez is not implicated.”
The reopening of this case highlights the ongoing struggle in Mexico to address legacy corruption and administrative failures in municipal governance. By clearing the current governor while pursuing former officials, the federal prosecutor is attempting to isolate political leadership from the technical and financial mismanagement of the 2019 contract, potentially setting a precedent for how 'ghost contracts'—where payment is made but services are not delivered—are prosecuted.
