The Administrative Court of Cundinamarca denied the claim with which it was intended to overthrow the appointment of Armando Benedetti Villaneda as minister of the interior of the Government of President Gustavo Petro.
The decision was adopted by the magistrates Claudia Elizabeth Lozzi MorenoLuis Manuel Lasso Lozano and Felipe Alirio Solarte Maya.
In the decision the claim filed was denied by the Francisco de Paula Santander Lawyers Collective whose intention was to declare the nullity of Decree No. 0245 of the first (1st) of March 2025, regarding the appointment of Armando Alberto Benedetti Villaneda in the Ministry of the Interior.
The plaintiffs argued that Minister Benedetti did not gather the requirements of physical or psychological fitness for the position.
For the authors of the judicial action, Benedetti was not the ideal person for the position, “due to his status asdrug addiction and alcoholic beverages, on the other hand, there is no evidence of the studies that he stated, there is no support for such studies, nor is there support for the experience that is required for the exercise of the position.”
“This appointment is made despite the fact that Mr. Benedetti publicly recognizes on November 25, 2024 that he is in the process of rehabilitation for drug and alcohol useand indicates that I relapsed again, but also accepts that he has been a drug addict since he was eighteen (18) years old,” the lawsuit states.
The group of lawyers also maintained that it is not known if he has already been rehabilitated, but what is clear is that, if so, nothing guarantees that he does not relapse again, to the detriment of his public function as Minister of the Interior.
For the court, the disciplinary offense that was raised by the plaintiffs must occur in the exercise of their functions as a public servant and not before, as the legal representative of the Francisco de Paula Santander Lawyers Collective Corporation.
“This Chamber considers that the conduct described above cannot be studied through the means of controlling electoral nullity, since they must be known by the internal control offices of the entities without prejudice to the preferential power of the Attorney General’s Office,” the Court’s magistrates concluded.
“Citing the defendant’s resume, he considers that it appears as a profession social communication but it does not indicate which university, he has no specialization or master’s degree and from what can be seen from the resume provided, there is absolutely no evidence that shows the experience required for the position to which he was appointed,” the letter stated.
“Finally, it should be noted that it is not up to the State to judge or determine the way of life of public officials in their private sphere of life as long as such acts do not affect the provision of public service, which must be investigated and punished as has been indicated in this ruling repeatedly, through the disciplinary law and not, through the means of electoral nullity control,” the Court emphasized.
