The president of the Judiciary, Janet Tellohas rejected the positions that motivated the opening of a disciplinary process against him by the National Justice Board (JNJ). Your lawyer, Luciano Lópezannounced through a statement published in the social network X, which will assume its legal defense and said that the magistrate denies having issued a resolution based on a repealed rule and that, on the contrary, it would be a decision by qualifying the duly founded decision.
López expressed concern about the possibility that the disciplinary procedure is processed in a summary manner, a resource reserved for cases of flagrance or extreme severity that could lead to sanctions such as suspension or dismissal. The case in question originated from an amparo process presented by a police officer separated from his position for alleged acts of corruption.
You can see: Óscar Medelius had bonds with narcos from Barrio King and the Cali poster
“As defenders, we also express our concern that the eventual disciplinary procedure can be processed by a summary route (not denied in the statement of the National Board of Justice) that is reserved for cases of flagrancy or of utmost severity actions sanctioned with suspension and/or dismissal ”, you can read in the statement of Janet Tello’s lawyer.
Why did a disciplinary process open to Janet Tello?
The National Board of Justice (JNJ) initiated a disciplinary process against the president of the Judiciary, Janet Tello, and four other Supreme Judges from a complaint filed by the citizen Julio Ramón Cadenillas Díaz on November 4, 2024, in which The “functional action” of the magistrates is questioned as members of the First Constitutional and Social Law Transitory Law of the Supreme Court.
The complaint claims that the judges, when resolving a cassation, would have cited a legal norm that was no longer in force in their sentence. This fact would have motivated the JNJ to consider the existence of a possible “notoriously irregular behavior” or a “very serious disciplinary lack”, which justifies the opening of an immediate disciplinary process.
