In a landmark decision that continues to shake the foundations of Peru’s judicial system, the National Board of Justice (JNJ) has handed down a second disciplinary destitution against Delia Espinoza Valenzuela. The move, finalized with a split vote by the JNJ plenary, marks a definitive end to her tenure as a Supreme Prosecutor, citing “very grave” infractions regarding her handling of a high-profile criminal investigation involving former Congressional President Alejandro Soto Reyes.
This latest development is not an isolated incident but part of an ongoing institutional crisis within the Peruvian Public Ministry. It follows a tumultuous period characterized by power struggles, allegations of political interference, and a series of administrative sanctions that have left the judiciary in a state of flux.
The Core Allegations: Negligence and Extra-Processual Conduct
The JNJ’s decision to remove Espinoza from her post rests on two primary pillars of misconduct, both of which the board categorized as egregious violations of the Law of the Fiscal Career.
1. Unjustified Procedural Stagnation
The JNJ investigators determined that Espinoza failed to advance a fiscal folder (investigative file) involving Alejandro Soto Reyes for a period of approximately seven months. The board rejected the defense’s argument that this delay was a result of an overwhelming case backlog. Instead, the plenary characterized the delay as a "willful omission," noting that the lack of activity in such a sensitive case—involving a high-ranking legislative official—suggested a lack of institutional rigor.
2. The Controversial Extra-Processual Meeting
Perhaps more damaging than the procedural delay is the evidence regarding a clandestine meeting held between Espinoza and Soto Reyes on September 2, 2025. At the time of the meeting, Soto Reyes was under investigation by the office Espinoza was overseeing.
The JNJ highlighted that this meeting took place in the congressional offices of the former lawmaker, rather than in an official capacity at the Public Ministry. The board’s report noted, "The testimonies provided by three independent witnesses corroborated the meeting, refuting the claim that it was held in a public or administrative setting within the Budget Committee."
Chronology of Events and Investigative Findings
To understand the severity of this sanction, one must look at the timeline of events that led to the JNJ’s intervention.
- September 2025: The meeting between Delia Espinoza and Alejandro Soto Reyes occurs. Espinoza initially claimed the meeting was purely professional, focused on budget negotiations for the Public Ministry on behalf of labor unions.
- Late 2025: Internal scrutiny begins as questions arise regarding the lack of movement on the Soto Reyes fiscal file.
- January 2026: Espinoza faces her first major professional crisis when she is dismissed as Supreme Prosecutor for failing to comply with an earlier JNJ mandate regarding the reinstatement of former Attorney General Patricia Benavides.
- September 19, 2026: The JNJ formally issues its plenary ruling regarding the "Soto case," finalizing the second destitution.
During the investigation, the JNJ uncovered significant contradictions in Espinoza’s testimony. While she originally insisted the meeting was requested by unions to discuss financial resources for the prosecutor’s office, she later claimed she could not recall who had coordinated the meeting. The JNJ concluded that there was no evidence that Soto Reyes had initiated the meeting for legitimate legislative purposes, further suggesting that the encounter was an inappropriate exercise of influence.
Supporting Data: The Split Plenary Decision
The decision was not unanimous, reflecting the intense polarization within the oversight body. The destitution was secured with three votes in favor from members Rafael Manuel Ruiz Hidalgo, Germán Alejandro Julio Serkovic González, and Gino Augusto Tomás Ríos Patio.
In contrast, the board members Jaime Pedro de la Puente Parodi and Cayo César Galindo Sandoval issued "singular votes," suggesting that while there were irregularities, the extreme measure of destitution might have been disproportionate or that the evidence provided did not fully meet the threshold for such a severe sanction. Most notably, the Vice President of the JNJ, Víctor Hugo Chanduví Cornejo, voted for the absolute acquittal of Espinoza, arguing that the charges were not substantiated by the evidence presented.
Official Responses and Institutional Tensions
The JNJ utilized social media to clarify the grounds for the ruling, emphasizing that the "conductive" nature of the fiscal role requires absolute neutrality. By failing to maintain distance from a subject under investigation, the board argued, Espinoza compromised the integrity of the entire Public Ministry.
Espinoza’s defense has consistently maintained that the investigations against her are politically motivated, intended to remove an "uncomfortable" prosecutor who was attempting to clean up the institution. However, the JNJ maintains that the evidence—specifically the testimonies of the three witnesses who confirmed the nature of the conversation—proves that the fiscal file was discussed during the meeting with Soto Reyes.
Implications for the Peruvian Judiciary
The destitution of a high-ranking official like Delia Espinoza has far-reaching implications for the stability of the rule of law in Peru.
1. Erosion of Public Trust
The constant turnover and disciplinary actions against top prosecutors create a perception of instability. When the public views the justice system as a theater for political warfare rather than a neutral arbiter of truth, the legitimacy of all subsequent investigations is called into question.
2. The Precedent of "Extra-Processual" Sanctions
By strictly enforcing the rules against extra-processual meetings, the JNJ is signaling a "zero-tolerance" policy toward informal diplomacy between the judiciary and the legislature. This may discourage future prosecutors from holding private meetings with politicians, potentially curbing the influence of political power on criminal investigations.
3. Institutional Weakening
With Espinoza out, the Public Ministry must once again reorganize its leadership. Frequent leadership changes hamper long-term investigative strategies, particularly in cases involving complex corruption and money laundering, which require years of continuity to reach a successful prosecution.
4. Future Legal Challenges
It is expected that Espinoza will exhaust all administrative and judicial avenues to challenge this ruling. Should the judiciary decide to reinstate her, it would set the stage for a constitutional clash between the JNJ and the judicial branch, further complicating an already tangled legal landscape.
Conclusion: A System at a Crossroads
The case of Delia Espinoza is a microcosm of the challenges facing the Peruvian justice system. The JNJ’s decision to destitue her reflects a commitment to institutional discipline, yet the split vote and the ongoing legal battles suggest that the institution is far from reaching a consensus on how to handle its own internal crises.
As the Public Ministry navigates this transition, the focus remains on whether the legal system can restore its independence. The removal of a Supreme Prosecutor for "very grave" faults serves as a stern warning: in the eyes of the current oversight body, the proximity between those who investigate and those who hold political power is a boundary that, once crossed, carries the most severe professional consequences.
For the citizens of Peru, the hope is that this cycle of sanctions will eventually yield a more transparent and impartial Public Ministry, capable of conducting its duties without the shadow of suspicion or the influence of extra-processual interference.
