Is Petro Leaving Colombia? The Senate's Controversial Travel Decision

On August 7th, Gustavo Petro handed over the keys to the Casa de Nariño. Three days later, he already had a letter ready for Congress — requesting permission to leave Colombia during the following year. What came next was predictable: half the country convinced he was about to flee, the other half convinced it was persecution. Neither had the full picture. In episode 004, George Castro does what few were willing to do: separate what is known from what is suspected.

A Routine Procedure or an Alarm? Why the Question Itself Matters

Before any opinion about Petro, Castro puts one fact on the table that changes the entire debate: Gustavo Petro had to request that permission. It is not persecution by the new government, not a measure created specifically for him, and not a signal that he intends to abandon Colombia. It is the Constitution.

Article 196 establishes that anyone who has held the presidency of the Republic cannot leave the country during the year following the end of their term without prior Senate permission. The reason is substantive: someone who just held the presidency had access to classified state information, made national security decisions, directed international relations, and administered a large portion of the state apparatus. They are not exactly an ordinary citizen when it comes to the responsibilities derived from the office they just left.

"Requesting permission does not mean being accused. It does not mean having an arrest warrant. These are completely different things."

With that established, Castro introduces the distinction that structures the entire episode. There are four things Colombians habitually mix together that must be separated: Petro's right to travel, the constitutional requirement he had to fulfill, the investigations that actually exist, and the claim that Petro intends to flee. That last one, says Castro, we don't know. And converting a suspicion into a fact is precisely the error that responsible analysis must avoid.

But something does generate legitimate questions: the request arrived just three days after handing over power. And it was broad — authorization to travel during practically his entire first year as former president, citing personal, social, political, and academic commitments, without specifying concrete destinations or explaining each commitment. Asking why, says Castro, is not an accusation. It is exactly what Colombians have the right to do.

Article 196 and the Difference Between Requesting Permission and Being Accused

When the Senate voted, 73 senators decided to grant the authorization. 11 voted against. And Castro wants to hear from both sides. But first he establishes something that got lost in the noise: Petro's request itself has nothing irregular about it. It is the correct procedure.

What does generate debate, says Castro, is not that he sent the letter. It is when he sent it, what he asked for, and the breadth of the authorization he requested. Those are legitimate questions. So is asking what happens if a Colombian authority requires him during that period. But we need to be precise about what kind of question we're asking.

Castro introduces a three-level distinction that clarifies the entire discussion:

Level one: "I don't like Gustavo Petro." That is an opinion. Valid, but requires no argument.

Level two: "I believe the Senate should have denied his request." That requires an argument — legal, institutional, based on facts.

Level three: "Gustavo Petro is going to flee." That requires evidence. And evidence, as of the moment of analysis, does not exist.

These three levels cannot be mixed. The Senate had to make an institutional decision — and it did. It granted the authorization with the condition that Petro inform the dates and destinations of his trips in advance. That condition, Castro notes, demonstrates that even among those who believed authorization should be granted, there was also a recognized need to establish some level of information and tracking.

Why Did Centro Democrático Vote Yes? The Principled Surprise That Changed the Story

Here comes the turn nobody expected. The vote did not follow the predictable script — Pacto Histórico in favor, Uribismo against, the left defending Petro, the right blocking his exit. It did not happen that way.

Sectors of Centro Democrático — Álvaro Uribe's party — ended up supporting the authorization. Under one condition, yes: that Petro inform dates and destinations in advance. But they voted yes. And Uribe publicly defended that position.

"Constitutional guarantees either apply to everyone, or they stop being guarantees."

Centro Democrático's argument was one of principle, not sympathy: if no judicial order restricts Gustavo Petro's freedom of movement, Congress cannot invent one. Constitutional guarantees cannot depend on whether you like a person or not. You demonstrate belief in institutions when the rules benefit someone you disagree with — not only when they benefit your own side.

Then something else appeared: Petro even publicly acknowledged Uribe's support and defended the position that the state should not unjustifiably restrict a person's freedom of movement. Two historic adversaries coinciding on a principle. Castro calls it another example of the phenomenon analyzed in episode 003: political coincidence is not alliance. But when those who most despise each other politically can defend the same principle in the same vote, something deeper is operating — something institutional that transcends sympathies.

What did the 11 who voted against argue? Castro wants to hear from them too. One of them, Senator JP Hernández, did more than vote no: he asked the question that turned this into national news.

What Investigations Actually Exist? Complaint, Investigation, Accusation, Conviction

JP Hernández went straight to the point: who guarantees that Gustavo Petro will return to Colombia? And he did not ask in a vacuum. He cited names: Carlos Ramón González, a fugitive from justice. César Manrique, who fled. Verónica Alcoser, who left the country the day before Petro handed over power while facing serious investigations. Three people from his inner circle who are no longer in Colombia to answer for anything.

Castro acknowledges this is a different level of question — no longer a discussion about a constitutional procedure, but a concern about future accountability. But to answer it well, one must start by understanding which investigations actually involve Petro directly.

And here Castro draws a distinction Colombia tends to ignore: a complaint, an investigation, an accusation, and a conviction are not the same thing.

What concretely exists? The most important matter involves the financing of his 2022 presidential campaign. The Constitutional Court determined that the House of Representatives is responsible for investigating Petro over alleged irregularities in campaign finance reporting. The preliminary investigation concluded in June 2026 with an important division: some investigators argued against formally charging Petro, while others believed sufficient elements existed to advance and even called for a formal interrogation. There were also reports of multiple investigations for alleged improper political participation during his government.

Is Petro convicted? No. Does an active case file exist that involves him directly and whose resolution remains pending? Yes. And that difference is fundamental.

"A person does not become a fugitive by traveling — they become a fugitive when a legal obligation to appear before a competent authority exists and they choose to evade it. And today that is not what we have in front of us."

Petro responds to all of this controversy by saying he has no pending legal troubles and that no judicial restriction exists preventing him from traveling. As far as can be publicly verified, says Castro, there is no known judicial order prohibiting Petro from leaving Colombian territory. Even Álvaro Uribe — one of his greatest political adversaries — defended the position that the former president's freedom of movement cannot be restricted without a judicial order.

So is there nothing to watch? Not that either. Investigations exist, an active campaign finance file exists, a context of controversies from his government exists, and a request submitted just three days after leaving office exists — one that naturally raised suspicions. That some Colombians say "wait, I want to know what's happening" is completely understandable. What cannot be done, says Castro, is converting that distrust into a verdict.

The Castro Method: The Right Question Matters More Than the Quick Answer

At the end of the episode, Castro does something that distinguishes his analysis: he changes the question.

He would not ask when Petro is going to flee. He would ask: what pending responsibilities does Gustavo Petro have, and what guarantees exist that he will respond if justice requires it? That, says Castro, is a far more difficult question — but also more honest and more useful.

Did the Senate do the right thing? Castro would have preferred that Congress, before voting, formally ask the competent authorities: does any active measure against Petro restrict his ability to leave the country? What is the procedural status of the investigations that directly involve him? With that information on the table, vote — not from the Petro perspective, not from Uribe's perspective, but from the institutions.

Because two equally dangerous errors can be made here: condemning Petro without a conviction, or acting as if by ending his presidency all questions about his government simply vanished. Neither is true.

The rule of law is not demonstrated when we protect the guarantees of our friends. It is demonstrated when we are capable of protecting the guarantees of our adversaries as well. That principle — which creates such discomfort when applied to those we don't like — is precisely what must guide responsible political analysis.

This episode does not end here. If Petro announces his first trips, Castro will return. If a judicial decision appears, he will return. If any authority summons him, he will return. And if something changes substantially from what is known today, he will return to correct his own conclusion. That, too, is part of analyzing politics responsibly.