He Chifagate has called into question the real power of the lobbies in the Congress and the way in which these interests management can influence political decisions when they are developed without control, registration or transparency. The case has raised alarms about the border between a permitted practice and the commission of possible acts of corruption.
The meetings attributed to President José Jerí with Chinese businessmen, outside of institutional spaces and without appearing in official agendas, they have reopened the discussion about how lobbying is exercised in the country and how exposed decision-makers are to private influences that seek concrete benefits from the State.
YOU CAN SEE: Segundo Montalvo already has 26 signatures to present a vacancy motion against José Jerí
Specialists in criminal law and political science agree that interest management is not illegal by nature, but it becomes a serious problem when it occurs in informal contexts, without protocols, without publicity of meetings and without mechanisms that allow conflicts of interest to be evaluated.
In this scenario, Chifagate is emerging as an emblematic case to analyze the fragility of controls, compliance with the Parliamentary Code of Ethics and the need to strengthen the rules that govern the relationship between congressmen, the private sector and political power.
YOU CAN SEE: Luz Ibáñez after withdrawing her application to the Court of The Hague: “I have not hooded myself to fulfill my role”
Andy Carrión, criminal lawyer: “The lobby must be regulated because it lends itself to favors and corruption crimes”
Criminal lawyer Andy Carrión maintains that lobbying is an activity aimed at defending interests before the State and that, by itself, it does not constitute a crime. However, he emphasizes that in the absence of clear regulation it can lead to requests for compensation, favors or benefits that fit into criminal offenses such as influence peddling or bribery. “Lobbying by itself is not necessarily negative. However, it lends itself to illicit activities, such as requesting some type of favors or compensation,” he stated.
The lawyer explains that in several countries there are codes of conduct for lobbyists and regulations that require meetings, agendas and the interests they represent to be transparent. In Peru, on the other hand, there is no specific framework that orders this activity, which leaves wide margins for opaque practices within Congress. “In our country there is no regulation as such regarding lobbying,” he warned.
YOU CAN SEE: No 87, Congress only needs 66 votes if it really wants to remove José Jerí from the Presidency
Carrión emphasizes that transparency is key to preventing the lobby from becoming a channel for undue pressure. The registration of meetings, the identification of participants and the public presentation of the topics discussed allow citizens to know who influences the decisions of senior officials. “It is essential to be transparent with whom an official meets and what interests are sought within the State,” he said.
From their perspective, Chifagate should serve as a turning point to promote regulation that sets clear limits and prevents private efforts from becoming mechanisms of State capture by particular interests. “This case should promote the regulation of the lobby and prevent it from becoming a negative influence,” he said.
YOU CAN SEE: Keiko Fujimori and Fernando Rospigliosi protect José Jerí amid questions over meetings with a Chinese businessman
Katherine Zegarra, political scientist: “Without transparency, the lobby becomes a conflict of interest”
PUCP political scientist Katherine Zegarra recalls that lobbying activity is legal and recognized in Peruvian regulations, but its legitimacy depends on the publicity of the acts and respect for the ethical rules that govern the parliamentary function. “Lobbying activities are not negative per se. The problem comes with opacity,” he said.
Warns that the Congress Regulations and the Code of Ethics prohibit congressmen from receiving gifts, donations or benefits of any kind. Paid trips, special attention or hidden favors violate these provisions and raise suspicions of improper commitments. “Parliamentarians cannot receive any type of favors or gifts,” he recalled.
Zegarra emphasizes that, when a legislator meets with representatives of private interests, he must declare that contact and refrain from intervening in decisions that may favor them. The omission of these obligations weakens citizen trust and opens the door to illegitimate influence. “He has to express it publicly and he has to abstain,” he indicated.
For the political scientist, Chifagate reflects a normalized practice of opacity that distorts political representation, as some parliamentarians end up prioritizing particular agendas over the public interest. “It has become natural for congressmen to represent opaque interests,” he warned.
Jonathan Correa, lawyer: “The negotiations cannot be carried out in informal spaces”
Criminal lawyer Jonathan Correa questions that lobby meetings take place in restaurants or other places outside of institutions. It maintains that all interaction between the public and private sectors must follow formal protocols, with agendas, security and administrative control. “It is not possible for coordination management to occur in an informal space like a chifa or a restaurant,” he stated.
Correa specifies that the legitimate mechanisms to channel investments or projects are tenders, public contests and regulated processes. Any coordination outside of these circuits lacks guarantees of transparency and legality. “Everything must happen within the protocols that the entities have,” he said.
YOU CAN SEE: José Jerí’s unreal figures: statistics on citizen security are biased
From their analysis, unregistered meetings outside the official headquarters make it impossible to verify who participated, what was offered and what was requested. This lack of traceability compromises the integrity of decisions and fuels suspicions of hidden agreements. “There is no agenda, there is no control, there is no security,” he warned.
The Chifagate case, according to the specialist, exposes a breakdown in the ways that should govern the relationship between businessmen and authorities, a situation that weakens the credibility of Congress and figures like José Jerí.
YOU CAN SEE: José Jerí: Chinese businessman Johnny Yang changes his version and lawyer due to the ‘Chifagate’ case
Andy Zeballos, political scientist: “The problem is putting private interests before the common good”
Political scientist Andy Zeballos recalls that the National Integrity Policy obliges all officials to record their meetings and justify the reason for each meeting. Interest management is legal, but it must be carried out within public entities and with accessible information. “All officials must record who they meet with, the date and the reason,” he said.
Zeballos rejects the idea that there are no mechanisms to control these appointments. It points out that the State has due diligence platforms that allow the background to be evaluated and the suitability of people who interact with authorities to be verified. “There is a mandatory tool that cross-references judicial and police information,” he explained.
YOU CAN SEE: They promote a call for an Extraordinary Session to debate and vote censure against José Jerí
The specialist warns that, when the lobby is aimed at favoring large companies or informal actors to the detriment of the general interest, the essence of political representation is violated. In these cases, the border between influence and corruption becomes blurred. “Particular interests come before the general well-being,” he said.
Finally, it states that the asset analysis of officials and the lifting of banking secrecy constitute key tools to determine whether behind opaque efforts, such as those revealed by Chifagate, there were undue economic benefits channeled through third parties. “One way to verify it is by reviewing the increase in assets and the use of front men,” he concluded.
