The dispute in the Public Ministry continues, but with a strong setback for those who do not want the return of Delia Espinoza. In its most recent meeting, the Board of Supreme Prosecutors decided not to debate the officialization of Tomás Gálvez as prosecutor of the Nation, thus maintaining him as interim head of the institution. In this way—at least until a new session is convened—Delia Espinoza will retain her status as suspended prosecutor of the Nation.
As confirmed by sources from the Public Ministry to La República, the supreme prosecutors did not include in the meeting agenda the request of Juan Mendoza Abarca, president of the Board of Provincial Prosecutors of Lima, who sought to make a single permanent prosecutor of the Nation official. The request could lead to the appointment of Tomás Gálvez as head of the Prosecutor’s Office. However, the same sources indicated that the issue was discussed informally and that the majority of supreme prosecutors were against making Gálvez official as the nation’s prosecutor.
The meeting, held today from 2 in the afternoon, would have lasted just over two hours. The central point of the agenda was to debate the request of the Institute of Legal Defense (IDL) and the National Coordinator of Human Rights (CNDDHH), who asked that another person temporarily assume the leadership of the Attorney General’s Office to replace Gálvez, alleging that he would be a “political actor.” The request was dismissed because—as prosecutors argued—it violated established procedures.
This takes place in the middle of the final day that the Judiciary dictated for the National Board of Justice (JNJ) to replace Delia Espinoza as prosecutor of the Nation. Previously, the JNJ did not correctly comply with the precautionary measure that ordered Espinoza to be reinstated as head of thePublic Ministry. Therefore, the Ninth Constitutional Court He ordered that it be fulfilled as today, November 14. Until the publication of this note, the JNJ has not commented on the matter.
Tomás Gálvez clings to the Attorney General’s Office: “There has to be a notification for me to leave”
Hours before the meeting, Tomás Gálvez stated that he will not leave office for Delia Espinoza to assume until he receives the corresponding notification from the National Board of Justice. The current head of the Attorney General’s Office did not specify whether there was any communication with the JNJ regarding the transition requested by the Judiciary.
“They haven’t told us anything. There has to be a notification for me to leave. Nothing has come to the Prosecutor’s Office. It depends on the National Board of Justice,” the acting Attorney General declared to the media. Minutes later, Gálvez left the press, visibly uncomfortable with the journalists’ questions.
The reinstatement of Delia Espinoza as prosecutor of the Nation has not yet been carried out
On October 22, the JNJ refused to reinstate Delia Espinoza despite the ruling that annulled her sanction, arguing that it did not have the authority to reinstate her as prosecutor of the Nation. His suspension had been dictated by four alleged facts: not reinstating Patricia Benavides as prosecutor of the Nation; remain in office without legal support; refuse to receive Benavides or to convene the Board of Supreme Prosecutors for his return; and promote actions among staff to prevent their reinstatement.
The JNJ interpreted that the precautionary measure only annulled the first of those four points, not the remaining three, which is why the court now warns that its decision was not complied with. Weeks later, the Ninth Constitutional Court published the requirement for the JNJ to execute Espinoza’s reinstatement within a maximum period of two days. With no apparent response, everything indicates that the institution led by Gino Ríos will remain in its position.
Luciano López, Espinoza’s lawyer, pointed out that the judicial resolution works as a “slap on the wrist” to the JNJ: “The problem is that the National Board of Justice does not have powers to appoint the prosecutor of the Nation; that has always been said, and the judge himself has also pointed it out. Therefore, since this error has occurred, we have asked him to specify it. That is the document that we have presented,” the lawyer explained to this medium.
