Colombia's president-elect Abelardo de la Espriella said he wants to end the Jurisdicción Especial para la Paz, known as the JEP [1].
The move signals a potential shift in how Colombia handles transitional justice and the legal aftermath of its long-standing internal conflict. By targeting the JEP, De la Espriella intends to implement a right-wing agenda focused on cracking down on crime and replacing existing peace mechanisms [3].
De la Espriella described the JEP as a "bodrio," or a mess, and said the institution is ineffective [1, 2]. His goal is to replace the tribunal with other mechanisms to ensure a different approach to justice [3]. This position was central to his campaign and post-election remarks in June 2026 [2].
However, legal experts and officials suggest that dismantling the tribunal is not a simple administrative task. One expert said the process "requeriría una reforma constitucional" — would require a constitutional reform [2]. This implies that the president-elect cannot simply dissolve the body through executive action.
Alejandro Ramelli, the president of the JEP, reinforced this view. He said that eliminating the JEP does not depend on a presidential decree [2]. This creates a potential legal standoff between the incoming administration and the judicial body.
Despite these contradictions, a JEP spokesperson said the organization is ready to coordinate with the government of Abelardo de la Espriella [2]. This suggests that while a total dismantling may be legally difficult, some operational changes could be negotiated without a full constitutional amendment.
De la Espriella won the presidency in a tight race on June 22, 2026 [3]. His victory sets the stage for a confrontation over the legal frameworks established by previous peace agreements.
“"Requeriría una reforma constitucional"”
The tension between De la Espriella's campaign promises and the legal reality of the JEP reflects a broader struggle in Colombia over the balance between peace-building and punitive justice. Because the JEP is anchored in constitutional frameworks, any attempt to abolish it without a legislative majority or a constitutional amendment could trigger a constitutional crisis or lead to a negotiated compromise on the tribunal's scope.
