MIAMI.– Former Colombian president Gustavo Petro faces a new controversy due to the statements of Deicy Jiménez, a young woman who claims to have maintained an intimate relationship with him and received contracts with public entities during that period. His testimony, published on October 25 by the magazine WEEKincludes allegations about alleged abuses of power, sexual encounters linked to state contracts and requests related to illicit substances.
The case has transcended the political debate. The Attorney General’s Office of Colombia opened an investigation into possible irregularities in the hiring of women during the previous Government, while the Supreme Court of Justice summoned Jiménez to hear his testimony.
The existence of public contracts and the actions of the authorities are verifiable facts. On the other hand, the circumstances in which they were granted, the alleged participation of Petro and the other reported conduct require independent corroboration.
The controversy has also put under scrutiny photographs provided by the young woman, the disclosure of personal information and the reactions of former allies of the former president.
Who is Deicy Jiménez?
Jiménez worked through service provision contracts with State entities. In an interview with Vicky Dávila, journalist and president of WEEKstated that he met Petro in 2019, when he was a congressman, and that he had a relationship with him for several years.
According to her version, the politician provided her with hiring opportunities and would have used similar mechanisms with other women. He also assured that Petro asked him to acquire and transport cocaine, a serious accusation that requires judicial verification.
Jiménez estimated that between 30 and 40 women had gone through similar situations and maintained that some continued to be linked to institutions such as the Presidency, Congress and the Health Superintendency. He also stated that several were afraid to speak out due to alleged pressure, intimidation or threats.
The complainant questioned women identified with feminism related to Petrism and assured that some had attended the parties described. However, in that exchange he did not identify specific people or provide sufficient evidence to attribute individual responsibilities. Nor do their statements alone demonstrate the existence of an organized network.
Public contracts
One of the central points is that Jiménez did have contractual links with state entities. WEEK published information on contracts in the Senate, the Superintendency of Surveillance and Private Security and the Ministry of the Interior.
Among the people mentioned is María José Pizarro, senator and Petro’s ally. Jiménez claimed to have worked under a contract related to his office and maintained that Pizarro knew that he was recommended by the then president. He also mentioned Armando Benedetti, who he said he knew of the alleged recommendation, although he did not believe he knew the details of their intimate relationship.
It is essential to differentiate the administrative records, which allow the contracts to be verified, from the accusation that these were granted as consideration for sexual encounters. That relationship needs additional evidence.
Added to this is an alleged certification of work experience issued in Iran, which Jiménez would have used to accredit requirements in hiring processes. Its authenticity, the issuing entity and its specific use must be compared with the original document and the files. The mere presentation of a certification would not demonstrate an irregular award.
The complaints do not come only from Jiménez. On October 21, Carlos Andrés Ríos Puerta, director of the Administrative Department of the Presidency of the Republic (DAPRE), stated before the Second Commission of the Senate that 48 women had been instrumentalized through service contracts during the Petro government to facilitate meetings with the then president.
Ríos announced that he would go to the authorities, but he did not publicly identify the women nor present during his speech the files that would allow the accusation to be verified. Her statements and Jiménez’s testimony must be examined separately: the figures of 48 and between 30 and 40 women cannot be added together without determining whether they refer to the same people.
Who recommended and authorized the hires? What tasks were carried out? Was there pressure or irregular intervention by officials? These are questions that require records, communications and testimonies, not advance conclusions.
Photographs and data
Jiménez accompanied her story with photographs, screenshots of conversations and other materials that, according to her, would support her claims. A comparative review of public images of Petro identified similarities in a red and white checkered shirt, a dark bag and a briefcase.
These coincidences justify additional verifications, but do not by themselves prove ownership, physical presence or authenticity of the reported facts. To establish conclusions it would be necessary to examine original files, dates, origin and circumstances of the images.
Another front is the disclosure of the complainant’s personal data. Questions arose against journalist Daniel Coronell for information that would allegedly allow her to be identified and learn about aspects of her family environment. Dávila also warned about the circulation of photographs and information related to the home of Jiménez’s family.
It is necessary to establish what each person published, if the data was already public and if there are threats linked to its dissemination. It would not be correct to automatically attribute threats or consequences of third-party publications to Coronell. The protection of those who report possible abuses of power must be reconciled with rigorous verification of the facts.
“Smokescreen”
The controversy reactivated statements by former senator Gustavo Bolívar, an ally of Petro. In an interview published by WEEK On January 7, 2023, Bolívar denounced alleged sexual exploitation practices against women linked to Congress. He stated that several had reported pressure to have sexual encounters through short-term contracts and assured that he knew the congressmen involved.
On October 22, 2026, in response to allegations about 48 women allegedly hired during the Petro government, Bolívar described the matter in X as a “smokescreen” and highlighted what he considered achievements of that administration.
His reaction predated Jiménez’s October 25 interview, so it cannot be presented as a direct response to his testimony. However, it raises a question: why did someone who reported possible sexual abuse linked to public contracts in 2023 dismiss new accusations of a similar nature in this way?
On January 9, 2023, the Attorney General’s Office announced a preliminary investigation into Bolívar’s complaints. He later confirmed that he appeared twice before that body and three times before the Prosecutor’s Office. It remains to be publicly clarified what the result of these actions was and whether any person was investigated or sanctioned.
These are, however, different episodes. There is no evidence presented here that allows linking Petro with the alleged network denounced by Bolívar in 2023.
Prosecutor’s Office and Supreme Court
On October 26, it was learned that the Prosecutor’s Office opened an investigation into possible irregularities in contracts awarded to women during the Petro government and announced proceedings with former officials of the Presidency. Two days later, WEEK reported that the Supreme Court of Justice had summoned Jiménez as a witness.
The opening of an investigation and the summoning of a witness are not equivalent to a declaration of guilt. The authorities must verify whether there were irregular links, who authorized and supervised them and what relationship, if any, they had with the reported encounters.
A hypothesis to be investigated is the possible existence of a coordinated mechanism to offer contracts in exchange for sexual favors. Determining this requires differentiating consensual relationships from possible situations of coercion, exploitation or abuse of authority. Accusations regarding cocaine, consumption or transportation of substances require, in turn, independent evidence and cannot be considered part of the same structure without demonstration.
WEEK reported that other women were providing information and names of alleged intermediaries. If corroborated, this information could contribute to establishing responsibilities, but so far the existence of a prostitution, sexual exploitation or drug trafficking network within the previous Government has not been judicially proven.
No answers
The case of Deicy Jiménez cannot be reduced to a discussion about the private life of a former president. Public interest arises from complaints of possible abuses of power, use of state resources, contractual irregularities and risks for those who decide to testify.
The seriousness of the allegations requires rigorous investigations, respect for the presumption of innocence and the right of response for all those involved. Photographs should be examined in context; the contracts, be contrasted with their files; and the statements, be verified with independent tests.
The authorities must also explain what happened with the sexual exploitation complaints made in 2023. The underlying question is whether public positions and resources were used during the exercise of power to obtain personal benefits, who could have facilitated this behavior and what controls worked or failed.
The answers must come from verifiable evidence and institutional decisions, not from political confrontation or the exposure of the people who report. However, the absence of judicial conclusions to date does not allow us to rule out the veracity of the allegations or diminish their seriousness.
On the contrary, it demands that they be investigated until the facts are clarified, possible responsibilities established and whether behind these complaints there were practices of abuse of power and improper use of public resources.
