The Final Countdown for Transitional Justice: The Legislative Push to Sunset Colombia’s JEP by 2027

BOGOTÁ — In a synchronized political and legislative offensive that could fundamentally reshape Colombia’s post-conflict landscape, conservative forces have launched a formal bid to dismantle the Special Jurisdiction for Peace (JEP). Enrique Gómez Martínez, director of the National Salvation Party, alongside Senator Simón Molina—a close ally of Medellín Mayor Federico “Fico” Gutiérrez and member of the Centro Democrático—has officially introduced a legislative act aimed at terminating the tribunal’s operations.

If successful, the constitutional amendment will bring the controversial transitional justice system to an abrupt close by March 2028, cutting short a lifespan originally intended to stretch well into the next decade.

The alliance represents a convergence of traditional anti-accord hardliners and influential regional political networks. It also underscores a broader, rapidly accelerating momentum against the tribunal within both the halls of Congress and the executive branch, setting the stage for what promises to be one of the most polarizing legislative battles of the decade.

Main Facts

The core of the initiative is a formal Acto Legislativo (constitutional reform bill) that requires eight distinct debates in the Colombian Congress to pass. The primary objective is stark and unambiguous: repeal the legal mechanisms that allow the JEP to function and eliminate any possibility of a ten-year extension.

• The Sponsoring Coalition: The bill is championed by Enrique Gómez Martínez and Senator Simón Molina, who secured his congressional seat with 63,812 votes in the March 2026 elections. Molina is widely recognized as one of the closest confidants of Medellín Mayor Federico Gutiérrez.
• The Proposed Timeline: Under the original 2016 Havana Peace Agreement framework (established via Legislative Act 01 of 2017), the JEP was granted a mandatory 10-year foundational window—expiring in 2027—with a potential maximum extension of up to 20 years, running until 2037. The new bill seeks to freeze operations by March 2028, effectively shuttering the tribunal at the conclusion of its initial decade.
• The Political Tailwinds: The legislative push arrives at a time of severe institutional vulnerability for the JEP. Congress has already signaled its displeasure by slashing the tribunal’s budget by 170 billion pesos. Furthermore, the administration of President Abelardo de la Espriella has adopted an aggressively hostile stance toward the court, framing it as an ideological instrument rather than a legitimate judicial body.

Chronology of the JEP: From Havana to the Legislative Chopping Block

Understanding the current existential threat to the JEP requires tracing its trajectory from a celebrated cornerstone of peace to a lightning rod for national division:

• November 2016: The final peace agreement is signed between the Colombian government and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) in Havana, Cuba, laying the groundwork for a comprehensive transitional justice model.
• April 2017: Legislative Act 01 of 2017 officially creates the Jurisdicción Especial para la Paz (JEP). It outlines a structural mandate of 10 years for core investigations and trials, with an express provision allowing for a decade-long extension if deemed necessary to fulfill its objectives.
• 2018–2024: The tribunal begins operations, processing thousands of former FARC combatants, state agents, and third-party civilians. Throughout these years, it faces persistent accusations from right-wing sectors of exhibiting institutional bias, granting excessive leniency, and failing to deliver rapid verdicts for victims.
• March 2026: Congressional elections shift the balance of power. Figures like Simón Molina secure critical seats, and a coalition of 11 political parties aligned with or sympathetic to the executive branch begins to coalesce around a platform of institutional reform and judicial reduction.
• September 2026: Budgetary constraints tighten significantly when Congress slashes 170 billion pesos from the JEP’s operational funding. Tensions escalate internationally and domestically following JEP President Alejandro Ramelli’s outreach moves to the International Criminal Court (ICC), which critics view as an adversarial maneuver against the national government.
• Late 2026: Enrique Gómez Martínez and Senator Simón Molina officially register the legislative act to terminate the JEP’s mandate by early 2028, sparking a national debate over the future of transitional justice in Colombia.

Supporting Data and Institutional Performance

At the heart of the anti-JEP coalition’s argument is a damning assessment of the tribunal’s operational efficiency and cost-effectiveness.

According to financial and judicial watchdogs cited by the bill’s proponents, the JEP has consumed an accumulated budget oscillating between 3.4 and 4 trillion pesos since its inception. Despite this massive capital injection, critics argue that the return on investment for Colombian society has been profoundly disappointing.

• The Impunity Metric: Detractors point to the severe scarcity of definitive, execution-ready sentences handed down against the top echelon of commanders—both from the former FARC guerrilla forces and elements of the Public Force—responsible for grave violations of international humanitarian law and war crimes.
• The Speed Deficit: Victim advocacy groups aligned with the political right argue that the tribunal’s slow pace has exacerbated psychological distress rather than providing closure. Cases involving forced disappearances, kidnapping, and recruitment of minors have dragged on for years without producing comprehensive restorative justice outcomes.
• Budgetary Starvation: The recent 170 billion peso budget cut reflects a tangible legislative appetite to constrain the court’s capabilities long before the constitutional amendment can reach its final debate stages. Proponents of the cut argue that public funds would be better reallocated to the ordinary justice system, which they contend is better equipped to handle criminality impartially.

Official Responses and Political Reactions

The campaign to sunset the JEP has triggered sharp reactions across the political spectrum, exposing deep ideological fissures regarding accountability, memory, and sovereignty.

The Proponents: Dismantling an "Ideological Tribunal"

Enrique Gómez Martínez did not mince words during the filing of the legislative act, offering a scathing summary of the tribunal’s legacy:

"The JEP has not brought justice; it has brought an enormous dose of impunity, bitterness, and an almost systematic tergiversation of subversion."

This sentiment is strongly echoed within the executive branch. President Abelardo de la Espriella has maintained a fierce campaign against the court since his election bids, characterizing the institution as a "political directory disguised as a tribunal, instituted to wash the hands of Farc narcoterrorist bosses and persecute the heroes of the fatherland."

Analysts note that JEP President Alejandro Ramelli’s recent proactive diplomatic and judicial moves toward the International Criminal Court only deepened the rift, alienating the administration and solidifying the resolve of congressional allies like Simón Molina to dismantle the system entirely.

The Defense: Protecting the Architecture of Peace

While the formal opposition inside Congress remains fragile—characterized by fragmented blocs such as the pact led by Senator Iván Cepeda, MAIS, and other left-of-center coalitions—defenders of the peace accord have warned that cutting the JEP short violates international commitments and betrays millions of victims.

Pro-JEP jurists and human rights organizations argue that transitional justice operates on a vastly different timeline than ordinary criminal courts due to the systemic, macro-criminal nature of the atrocities committed during the 50-year internal conflict. They contend that shutting down the tribunal prematurely will leave hundreds of restorative sentences unexecuted, plunge thousands of ongoing victim proceedings into legal limbo, and damage Colombia’s standing as a signatory to international human rights treaties.

Implications for Colombia’s Future

The legislative push to terminate the JEP by 2027 carries profound implications for the nation’s legal, political, and social fabric:

1. Legislative Realities: With 11 political parties aligned with government-friendly and anti-accord platforms holding numerical dominance in Congress, the constitutional reform has a viable mathematical path through its required eight debates. What was once considered an impossible fringe proposal is now viewed as a serious legislative threat to the status quo.
2. International Scrambling: An early termination of the JEP would likely trigger immediate scrutiny from the International Criminal Court in The Hague, which has monitored Colombia’s compliance with the principle of complementarity. If the state abandons its specialized transitional framework without offering an equally robust alternative for prosecuting international crimes, international prosecutors could step back in.
3. Polarization and Social Cohesion: The debate lays bare the unresolved trauma of the Colombian conflict. For conservative sectors, closing the JEP represents a restoration of national honor and true equality before the law. For victims’ organizations and peace signatories, it represents the unraveling of a delicate historical compromise that promised truth, justice, and non-repetition.

As the bill begins its long and arduous journey through the congressional committee rooms, Colombia stands at a historic crossroads, forced to decide whether the architecture built to heal the wounds of war should be preserved or dismantled in the name of a different vision of justice.