Martinelli’s defense files an appeal against election disqualification

Photo of author

By LatAm Reports Editorial Team

Martinelli’s defense demands to revoke the March 4 agreement that disqualified him as a candidate for President of Panama and as a deputy.

The defense of the former president of the Republic and leader of the party Realizing Metas (RM), Ricardo Martinelli, filed an appeal for reconsideration against the Agreement of the Plenary of the Electoral Tribunal No. 11-1 of March 2024 that agrees, among other things, the disqualification inhabilitación of the candidacy for the post of President of the Republic.

Martinelli’s defense demands to revoke the March 4 agreement that disqualified him as a candidate for President of Panama and as a deputy.

Attorney Alejandro Pérez warns that Judge Baloisa Marquínez committed the crime of falsehood by stating that the mixed sentence in the New Business case was enforceable, when it is not final, because it is necessary to define the situation of six acquitted defendants, whose fate is pending appeals filed by the Prosecutor’s Office.

In this regard, lawyer Carlos Carrillo listed, last Tuesday, a series of illegalities committed in the process and pointed out that about 10 appeals remain to be resolved in the New Business case.

“Neither in substance nor in form, the conviction against Ricardo Martinelli is sustainable doctrinal or legally. There is no way to support this conviction,” Carrillo said.

Meanwhile, Alejandro Pérez also alerted judges Eduardo Valdés Escoffery, Alfredo Juncá and Luis Guerra, who may incur the same conduct as Baloisa Marquínez, by accepting as valid a falsehood.

He also warns that since Martinelli’s no application is final there is no provision in the Electoral Code that allows his nomination to be discharged, unless his proclamation is contested and his proclamation is challenged.

Pérez also cites articles 615 and 620 of the Electoral Code, which establish aspects on disqualification they initiate with electoral administrative prosecutors and electoral administrative judges. They also stress that the second instance is the plenary before the judges.

They also point to Judge Valdés’ statements on February 4 in “Opening Debate,” where he warns the double instance and then the Electoral Tribunal itself issues two communiqués reiterating the double instance.

This article has been translated from the original which first appeared in Pamamerica