Francisco Barbosa, Colombia’s former attorney general, said Saturday that state agencies wiretapped, followed and tracked him through government databases while he led the prosecution service during Gustavo Petro’s presidency. He plans to file a criminal complaint on Monday 5 October, calling the alleged operations one of the gravest attacks on judicial independence in Colombia’s recent history.
The Allegation
Barbosa served as attorney general from February 2020 to February 2024, a four-year term. He says authorities subjected him to wiretaps, physical surveillance and searches of state databases during that time. He names two agencies: the National Intelligence Directorate (DNI) and the Financial Information and Analysis Unit (UIAF), which tracks suspicious money flows for the Finance Ministry.
According to La Opinión, Barbosa says the aim was to intimidate prosecutors investigating people close to Petro. His former deputy, Martha Mancera, was allegedly watched too.
Barbosa wants the Fiscalía, the office he once led, to investigate whoever ordered, carried out or covered up the operations. He’s asking officials to move quickly, "so that time does not erase the criminal traces," Infobae quoted him as saying. He’s also asked the DNI and UIAF to hand over and preserve documents, work orders and records concerning him.
What the Audit Found
The claims emerged alongside a forensic audit of the DNI commissioned by President Abelardo de la Espriella, a right-wing lawyer who took office in August. Semana published the findings Saturday. Auditors collected 147 terabytes of data, 40 computers and five phones or tablets. They classified more than 100 DNI staff members as a critical or high security risk.
The magazine wrote that Petro’s government turned the agency into "a kind of political police." It also raised questions about a drone bought for COP 9 billion, about US$2.7 million, that crashed in the Catatumbo region. According to Semana, weekly intelligence reports reached Petro. A UIAF source told the magazine that officials watched anyone who "smells of uribismo," the movement of former president Álvaro Uribe.
Semana’s list of alleged targets includes former presidents Álvaro Uribe and Iván Duque, former Inspector General Margarita Cabello and former Comptroller Carlos Felipe Córdoba. The list also names politicians María Fernanda Cabal and Paloma Valencia, along with retired generals Eduardo Zapateiro and Luis Fernando Navarro. La FM reported a similar list.
Unanswered Questions
Reports published Saturday included no response from Petro or from the five men who ran the DNI under him. The agency had earlier rejected accusations from de la Espriella and asked for evidence, Semana noted.
The caveats matter. Petro’s political opponent commissioned the audit. The findings remain allegations; no court has ruled on them, and everyone named is presumed innocent. No one has been charged.
Next comes the paperwork. Once Barbosa files on Monday, the Fiscalía must decide whether and how to investigate. The DNI and UIAF must respond to his records requests.
Colombia has faced this before. The DNI was created in 2011, and 15 years have now elapsed. It replaced the DAS, which the government dissolved after it spied on Supreme Court judges, journalists and opposition figures. That scandal, known locally as the "chuzadas" or wiretaps, hit the government of Álvaro Uribe.
Why This Matters:
Intelligence agencies wield powers ordinary citizens can’t match. The only real check is institutional: courts, prosecutors, records and oversight that survive a change in government. If officials turned surveillance on a sitting attorney general, as Barbosa alleges, the question is whether those checks held. The source also shows the problem isn’t confined to one party. The DAS shut down after the chuzadas hit Uribe’s government, and now the allegations target Petro’s. From a limited-government view, that history argues for hard limits on what spy services can do, whoever is in power. It also argues for due process here. An audit ordered by a political rival isn’t a verdict, and taxpayers who funded a COP 9 billion drone deserve answers backed by evidence in court, not headlines.