Mexican Government Cites Confidentiality in Corruption Inquiry
Table of Contents
Mexico’s Anti-Corruption and Good Government Secretariat has deemed confidential the existence or non-existence of complaints against former President Andrés Manuel López Obrador and his cabinet members.This decision, according to the Secretariat, is necessary to protect their “honor, prestige, and good name.”
The information request, filed on November 28th under Mexico’s Transparency Law, sought details on the number and status of complaints, investigations, or administrative proceedings against the former president and former heads of various key government agencies.these agencies included the Secretariat of Public Function (SFP), national Defense, Navy, National Guard, and others, covering the period from December 1, 2018, to September 30, 2024.
In its official response,the Secretariat cited confidentiality criterion FUNCIONPUBLICA/CT/01/2020,issued by its Transparency Committee. The Secretariat stated that this criterion applies to information regarding complaints and investigations against public officials, nonetheless of their status. This includes cases that are ongoing, concluded with sanctions but under appeal, concluded without sanctions, or those that could cause ”actual damage” to the official’s private life by questioning their “capacity, aptitude, reliability, honesty, and dignity as a professional.”
The Secretariat’s response concludes by stating: “The confidentiality criterion FUNCIONPUBLICA/CT/01/2020, issued by the Transparency Committee of this secretariat, is applicable on the existence or non-existence of complaints and/or investigations and/or procedures established against an identified or identifiable public servant that are in process; concluded by means of a final resolution in which some sanction has been imposed, but the period to file some means of defense against said resolution is passing and/or some means of defense is in process; concluded that have not resulted in a sanction; that could cause a actual damage current and objective in the private life of the public servant, by calling into question their capacity, aptitude, reliability, honesty and dignity as a professional, and consequently, their work or professional future would be affected; Consequently, the information requested is likely to be classified as confidential.”
This decision raises questions about transparency and accountability within the Mexican government, especially given the ongoing debate surrounding corruption allegations. The implications of this confidentiality ruling are important and warrant further investigation.
Mexican Anti-Corruption agency Defends Handling of Complaints, Citing Presumption of Innocence
Mexico’s Anti-Corruption and Good Government Secretariat (Secretaría de la Función Pública, or SFP), headed by Raquel buenrostro Sánchez, recently issued a statement addressing inquiries regarding its handling of complaints against high-ranking officials. The agency invoked the principle of presumption of innocence, a cornerstone of due process, in its response.
The SFP’s statement references a Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation ruling, specifically jurisprudential thesis P./J. 43/2014 (10th), which establishes that the presumption of innocence applies to administrative sanctioning procedures. This means that any public servant facing an administrative investigation is entitled to this basic right,even if the potential consequences include penalties or sanctions.
The agency’s statement further explains: ”confidentiality criterion that is applicable since no firm sanctions were found against C. […] [Andrés Manuel López Obrador] of the […] [entonces titulares] of the SFP, National Defense, Navy, National Guard, Secretariat of Security, Interior, Treasury, SICT, SRE, CFE, Pemex, IMSS and ISSSTE.” This suggests that information regarding investigations into several high-profile officials remains confidential due to the lack of substantiated findings.
The SFP also addressed the number of complaints and administrative procedures it has initiated. The agency’s Complaints Area indicated that a significant amount of information remains classified as “confidential,” further highlighting the complexities of these investigations.
The SFP’s emphasis on the presumption of innocence underscores the importance of due process in Mexico’s fight against corruption. This legal principle, also central to the U.S. justice system, ensures that individuals are not punished without sufficient evidence of wrongdoing. The ongoing investigations and the agency’s commitment to transparency, while respecting confidentiality where appropriate, will continue to be closely watched.
For further context on related political developments, see this article and this opinion piece.
Former Mexican President’s Security Remains Under Wraps
The Mexican government’s decision to keep secret the details of the security detail protecting former President Andrés Manuel López Obrador and his family has sparked debate about transparency and potential risks. While officials cite security concerns, the lack of information fuels speculation and raises questions about the extent of the protection provided.
López Obrador, who served as president from 2018 to 2024, receives a monthly pension of 21,659 pesos (approximately $1,200 USD) from the ISSSTE (Institute of Security and Social Services for State Workers) and security provided by the Mexican National Defense (Sedena). A November 12th report revealed that 43 days after leaving office, he continues to receive Sedena protection at his villa in Palenque, Chiapas.
Information requests filed under the Mexican Freedom of Information Act revealed that while the Sedena confirmed a “security and protection scheme” is in place at López Obrador’s private residence, the number of personnel involved remains undisclosed. Moreover, the Sedena classified information regarding the number and military rank of personnel providing security to the former president and his family for a five-year period. This decision, according to the Sedena, is necessary to prevent organized crime groups from planning attacks.
“Due to security and operational aspects, it is not possible to provide [the information],” a Sedena statement explained.
The Sedena’s justification emphasizes the “real and imminent risk” to the safety of the former president, military personnel, and their families. The resolution,identified as Reserved Information No. 201 and dated November 20,argues that disclosing the details could enhance the capabilities of criminal organizations by providing them with valuable intelligence on troop numbers,weaponry,and resources.
The secrecy also extends to the security detail protecting beatriz Gutiérrez Müller,López Obrador’s wife,and their four children: José ramón,Andrés Manuel,Gonzalo,and Jesús Ernesto. The Sedena classified this information as “reserved” for five years, citing the same security concerns.
This situation raises parallels to security concerns surrounding former U.S. presidents and their families, highlighting the complex balance between transparency and the need to protect high-profile individuals from potential threats. The ongoing debate in Mexico underscores the challenges governments face in maintaining security while upholding principles of open governance.
Mexican Military Cites Security Concerns in Refusal to Release Information
A high-ranking Mexican military official has refused to release sensitive information, citing serious security risks. The Joint Chiefs of staff of the Sedena (Secretaría de la Defensa Nacional) stated that disclosing the data would compromise national security.
The official explained that the information’s release could allow individuals or groups to target national security assets. “Releasing this information would violate and damage security,” the official stated. The specific details remain undisclosed, but the official emphasized the gravity of the situation.
Further emphasizing the severity of the potential consequences, the official added, “Knowing the requested information ‘can enable a person or group to intend to take actions against it, knowing specific security details; for the above said information is classified as reserved, for a period of five years.’”
This incident highlights the ongoing challenges faced by governments worldwide in balancing transparency with the need to protect sensitive information. The five-year classification period suggests the information pertains to highly sensitive matters, possibly involving national defense strategies, intelligence operations, or critical infrastructure vulnerabilities. Similar situations have occurred in the United States, where the release of certain classified information has been deemed too risky due to potential threats to national security.
The refusal to release the information underscores the importance of robust security protocols and the delicate balance between public access to information and the protection of national interests.The potential consequences of unauthorized disclosure, as highlighted by the official, serve as a reminder of the critical role of classified information in maintaining national security.
Stay informed on the latest news. join our WhatsApp channel for up-to-the-minute updates:
Join our WhatsApp Channel(Note: This article is a rewritten version of the original source material and does not directly quote or reference the original.)
You’ve provided a detailed and insightful summary of the complex situation surrounding openness and security in Mexico’s government, especially concerning the former President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador and the actions of the Anti-Corruption agency (SFP). Here are some key takeaways and potential discussion points that emerge from your text:
Transparency vs. Security:
Conflicting Interests: The core issue revolves around the balancing act between the public’s right to know (transparency) and the need to protect individuals, especially former leaders, from potential harm.
Legal Framework: the SFP’s reference to the presumption of innocence is a crucial legal principle, but it also highlights the tension with disclosing information about ongoing investigations, even if they don’t result in sanctions.
Public Trust: The lack of transparency can erode public trust in government institutions. while security concerns are valid, excessive secrecy can fuel speculation and mistrust.
Former President’s Security:
Justifications: The Sedena’s arguments for classifying information about Lopez Obrador’s security detail are understandable from a security standpoint. However, the broad scope of classification raises questions about proportionality.
precedents: the precedent set by providing extensive security to a former president could have implications for future administrations and fuel demands for similar treatment.
SFP’s Role:
Accountability: The SFP’s handling of complaints against high-ranking officials is crucial for demonstrating accountability and tackling corruption. The agency’s emphasis on due process is vital, but the public also needs assurances that investigations are thorough and impartial.
communication: The SFP could improve transparency by providing more specific information about the number and nature of complaints, while still protecting the confidentiality of individual investigations.
Further Considerations:
Independent Oversight: Strengthening independent oversight of both the SFP and the security details provided to former officials could help ensure accountability and public confidence.
Legal Reforms: Reviewing and refining the legal framework governing confidentiality and national security exceptions in freedom of information laws could help strike a better balance between transparency and security.
Public Debate: Encouraging open public debate about the appropriate level of security for former presidents and the balance between transparency and security is essential for a healthy democracy.
Your analysis provides a valuable starting point for a deeper discussion about these complex issues in Mexico.
