Former government minister Carlos Romero disagreed with the determination of the MAS to authorize liability proceedings against Jeanine Áñez, as this would mean recognition of her constitutional mandate and that of the party’s former president Evo Morales. .
“To judge that in terms of liability law, in my opinion, means to recognize that it was a transitional government and that the MAS has signaled – and I absolutely agree – that the succession was not constitutional, there was talk” of fraud and others Things; matters. And the time was more or less clear, which is precisely why I consider it a contradiction, “affirmed Romero.
“I do not think that a liability case against Jeanine ñez is sensible, the affairs of Jeanine Áñez should be justified before the (ordinary) judiciary, not before a new judiciary in five years or a certain time,” said the former government minister in an interview with the show Fama, Poder y Ganas.
He also said that the accountability process is a political entity and “the accountability process is a political process and it is clear that the MAS does not have two thirds, but on the other hand the opposition bloc has cracks.”
He considered that the process “may be too complex in its dynamics and the problem is that it costs us a lot of time as a public agenda”.
The MAS intends to pass a judgment in the Plurinational Legislative Assembly on the former president’s responsibilities for crimes such as genocide and others for the Sacaba and Senkata massacres.
According to the Law on the Prosecution of High Authorities in Bolivia, the Plurinational Legislative Assembly must approve this procedure with the vote of two-thirds of its members; however, the MAS does not have that amount of support.
There were voices in the ranks of the MAS saying that if the privilege process is unsuccessful, they will resort to two avenues: ordinary justice with civil and criminal proceedings.
For the party of former President Evo Morales, Áñez did not take over the presidency of Bolivia in constitutional succession, so she was a “de facto” president, but there are sectors in the same party which suggest that the existence of liability proceedings contradicts this argument.