Caribbean & Central America - April 2018 (ISSN 1741-4458)

The relationship between the Honduran executive and congress in the complex fight against corruption in the country remains under scrutiny.

As expected, President Juan Orlando Hernández on 3 April vetoed a bill proposing reforms to the May 2010 law on the seizure of assets of illicit origin (Ley de Privación Definitiva de Dominio de Bienes de Origen Ilícito). The law was first approved when Hernández was himself president of the national congress, controlled by the ruling Partido Nacional (PN).

In late March, the current congress, elected late last year and still largely PN-controlled, proposed amending the law such that, save in the case of drug traffickers, the assets of individuals suspected of organised crime or corruption could not be seized until after a judge had issued a definitive sentence in the case. The proposed reform – basically watering down the law so as to protect current and former public officials implicated in corruption – was put forward by the right-wing Partido Alianza Patriótica Hondureña, led by the former head of the armed forces and failed 2013 presidential candidate, Romeo Vásquez Velázquez. The party has just four deputies, and while independent, is a natural bedfellow of the conservative PN. President Hernández, moreover, has close military ties.

• Congress

The current congress, which took up its seats in late January, comprises 61 PN deputies, with 30 for the opposition Libre, 26 for the traditional Partido Liberal, four for the Alianza Patriótica, four for the Partido Innovación y Unidad-Social Demócrata (PINU-SD), one for the Partido Anticorrupción (PAC), one for Unificación Democrática (UD), and one for the Partido Demócrata Cristiano (DC).

The controversial amendments, affecting 12 articles of the law, was approved by 67/128 votes in late March. The proposed changes immediately were condemned by the Organization of American States (OAS)-sponsored Mission for Support against Corruption and Impunity in Honduras (Maccih), and the Asociación para una Sociedad más Justa (ASJ), the local chapter of international anti-corruption NGO Transparency International (TI). In a statement on 21 March, the US embassy said the US government was “concerned with recent actions counter to the anti-corruption work in Honduras, which is a fundamental element of US support in the region. We remain dedicated to assisting the MACCIH, CAN [national anti-corruption council], Ministerio Publico [attorney general’s office, AG], and other organizations fighting corruption and impunity,” it stressed. From the outset, President Hernández warned that he would veto it.

The minister of the presidency, Ebal Díaz, who appeared before congress to explain the presidential veto, accepted the argument that in some cases the law appeared to have been too harshly applied, lacking either rationality or proportionality, and thus had generated ill feeling in some sectors. This notably includes Hernández’s immediate predecessor, former president Porfirio Lobo (PN, 2009-2014), whose wife, Rosa Elena, has been detained since 28 February on charges of embezzlement to the tune of US$675,000 during her time as First Lady. Her assets too have been seized. Having handed over his wife’s house to the authorities in early April (which he, apparently, had transferred to her years previously), Lobo raged that he considered his wife “a political prisoner”.

However, Díaz insisted to congress that the problem was less with the law itself than with its irregular application. He said that having consulted widely, President Hernández had decided to go ahead with the veto. Díaz noted that the complainants should have recurred in the first instance to the supreme court’s constitutional justice commission for an opinion on the law. That court, he noted, was tasked with examining legislation to consider whether it might require any “corrections”. Congress signalled that it would accept the presidential veto (and in any case, would not have been able to muster the 86 votes required to overturn it).

The CNA welcomed the presidential decision, which it said was “congruent with the fight against corruption” and “supportive of the institutional strengthening so needed in our country”.

The case illustrates perfectly the institutional to-ing and fro-ing in Honduras over anti-corruption legislation, with a recalcitrant congress constantly pushing back against even the most minimal efforts by the AG and the Maccih to improve the rule of law. While Hernández’s own commitment to anti-corruption efforts appears lukewarm at best, he has no choice but to show willing, under intense international pressure. Nonetheless, the president’s strongest critics say his behaviour amounts to mere lip-service at best, and utter cynicism at worst.

Certainly, a pattern has emerged whereby the Maccih and the AG carefully prepare legislation, the executive sends it down, and the PN-controlled congress duly approves it – albeit in diluted form (and, almost inevitably, later waters it down further). Maccih complains, but the government claims it is not responsible for the actions of congress. Given Hernández’s ironclad grip on power, it is a rather disingenuous position, and critics accuse him of duplicity.

Another looming battle with congress is the election of a new AG for the country. In March, a nominating board was set up to pre-select candidates for the post, with the shortlist to be voted on by congress in the final quarter. The United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Diego García-Sayán, an independent expert appointed by United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHCR), on 3 April issued a statement calling on the governments of Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala (both also due to appoint new AGs this year) to underline their commitment to fighting “vice and corruption by ensuring the selection process…is transparent and fair”.

• García-Sayán’s statement

In his statement Diego García-Sayán, an independent expert appointed by United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHCR), notes that attorney generals in the Northern Triangle must face major challenges including transnational criminal organisations, corruption and impunity. He underlines that selection processes should be “inclusive, transparent and follow strict, clear and objective criteria to evaluate the integrity, suitability and competences of the candidates”. “It is critical that these processes are administered with transparency,” he emphasised.