International observers certify Colombia’s first-round vote as transparent and credible

Two major international electoral observation missions have rejected claims of fraud in Colombia’s May 31 presidential first round, as outgoing President Gustavo Petro continued to press unsubstantiated allegations of irregularities in the days following the vote. The country heads to a June 21 runoff between right-wing candidate Abelardo de la Espriella and leftist senator Iván Cepeda.

The European Union Election Observation Mission (EU EOM) issued a preliminary statement Tuesday, June 2, describing the vote count as having been carried out in a “transparent, orderly and fluid” manner. Esteban González Pons, Vice President of the European Parliament and chief observer of the EU mission, told reporters in Bogotá that none of the 12 candidates who competed in the first round had brought claims of irregularities to his mission.

“We can discard any manipulation of data in the quick count and in the final count,” González Pons said. The mission selected a random sample of tally sheets from around the country and compared them to physical ballots cast, finding no inconsistencies.

“We can discard any manipulation of data in the quick count and in the final count.” — Esteban González Pons, Chief Observer, EU Election Observation Mission to Colombia

The EU EOM deployed 143 observers from 24 EU member states plus Norway, Switzerland, and Canada, covering 591 voting tables. The mission will also observe the June 21 runoff and issue a final report two months after the process concludes.

The Organization of American States (OAS) mission, headed by former Dominican Republic President Leonel Fernández, similarly described the May 31 election day as “civic, calm and participatory,” with high citizen turnout compared to previous electoral cycles. The OAS mission comprised 96 observers and specialists from 24 countries, covering 412 polling stations and 1,340 voting tables across 26 departments, the Capital District, and five cities abroad.

Official results from the National Civil Registry (Registraduría Nacional del Estado Civil) showed de la Espriella receiving 43.74% of the vote, a margin of more than 673,000 votes over Cepeda, who received 40.90%. More than 23 million voters participated. By Monday night, the Registry said it had completed its review of 99.98% of voting tables and found a variation of only 0.06% from the quick count issued on election night.

Presento las bases comprobadas del posible fraude. Que puedo entregar a autoridad competente.

Dije que no reconocí los datos del preconteo del software de los hermanos Bautista es porque tengo datos.

Mi compromiso con mi pueblo y el amor a mi país por el que he luchado toda mi…

— Gustavo Petro (@petrogustavo) June 2, 2026

Petro, who is constitutionally barred from seeking re-election, alleged on Sunday that 800,000 voters had been illegally added to voter rolls. He doubled down Tuesday in a post on X, claiming without evidence that 885,000 voters had been registered after a March 31 deadline, and pointing to alleged irregularities in the software used for vote counting and tabulation. The president said he could present his evidence to the relevant authorities.

Cepeda, who represents Petro’s Pacto Histórico, initially declined to acknowledge the quick count results on Sunday, saying he would wait for the official tally overseen by judges and notaries. By Monday, however, he softened his position, stating that monitors deployed by his party had not found “irregularities of a sufficient dimension to speak of fraud.” Cepeda also challenged de la Espriella to a debate ahead of the runoff.

Under Colombian law, election results are certified by judges, not the executive branch, typically within two weeks of the vote. González Pons noted that Colombia “has very strong democratic institutions, rooted in the people,” adding that the country “will find in democracy its principal ally, because of all the things that fail Colombia, democracy is one that has never failed it.”

Political analysts and observers have cautioned that Petro’s fraud allegations, made without supporting evidence, risk inflaming political tensions and contributing to a polarized climate in the lead-up to the June 21 runoff.

Just days away from Colombia’s first-round presidential election, incumbent President Gustavo Petro continues to sound the alarm about voter fraud. 

On Tuesday, he repeated claims that the National Registrar’s Office is allowing the vote to be manipulated against his party’s candidate, Senator Iván Cepeda.

Petro renewed calls for citizens to supervise the vote count, describing it as the only way to avoid fraud: “Only the physical vigilance of millions of people can overcome the algorithm manipulations that the Registrar’s Office refused to prevent.”

But are the president’s claims of vulnerabilities in the voting system valid?

A decade-long dispute

Petro’s claims stem from a long-running grudge with Thomas Greg & Sons, a multinational security and printing company tasked with issuing Colombian passports and overseeing electoral logistics.

According to Petro, the firm cannot be trusted with the sensitive task of printing, delivering, and processing vote counting forms.

While the president’s claims have widely been dismissed by electoral institutions as reckless, there is some foundation for them.

Following the 2014 legislative elections, the evangelical political party, MIRA, filed a legal petition against the Registrar’s Office, claiming a discrepancy between the ballot pre-count (filled out by citizen juries in a form known as E-14) and the digitized tally of the vote (filled out by officials in the E-24 form).

MIRA claimed to have evidence of manipulation of the software used for “voting, information, transmission, or tabulation of election results,” which was managed by a subsidiary of Thomas Greg & Sons. 

After a lengthy four-year legal case, the Council of State (Consejo de Estado), the highest court overseeing the government, issued a ruling in favor of MIRA. It found evidence of destruction of electoral material and inconsistencies between the E-14 and E-24 forms. 

Crucially, the Council of State said that it could not confirm that voting software had been sabotaged because it did not have access to the source code of the software during the elections.

Without the original code, it was impossible to know if the system had been tampered with.

The body issued a clear recommendation to prevent repetitions of the dispute in future elections: “Direct the Electoral Organization to acquire the necessary vote-counting software for use within the state—that is, software owned by the organization itself—which allows for full traceability of the vote-counting process from the polling stations through to the official declaration of the election results.”

In other words, it recommended that electoral authorities roll out their own software, rather than relying on third party providers.

But 12 years later, Thomas Greg & Sons remains in charge of the electoral software; according to the Registrar’s Office, purchasing proprietary software and operating the corresponding data centers is not feasible.

While Petro continues to lobby for a fully state-owned system, he has concentrated his efforts on mitigating the risks of a repeat of the 2014 source code issue.

The president has repeatedly demanded that the Registrar’s Office share the source code with the government and the public, which he says would allow them to prevent a repeat of the situation in 2014.

But the Registrar’s Office maintains that there is no need, suggesting that publicizing the code would leave the software more vulnerable to attacks and defending internal audit processes.

Petro rebutted, calling the claim “an immense lie”.

Other types of fraud

As well as warning about software manipulation, the president has also raised the alarm about differences between the pre-count and the official, scrutinized count. Ahead of the March elections, he warned that the pre-count may not accurately reflect the results.

Petro’s concerns stem from the 2022 legislative elections in which over half a million votes for his Historic Pact coalition were excluded in the pre-count and later revealed in the scrutiny. 

Rather than software, the culprit for the discrepancy, which in total represented a 5.49% difference, was human error; the Electoral Observation Mission (MOE) had warned the ballot sheets were designed in a way that could lead to Historic Pact votes being neglected. 

But the 2022 vote appears to be an outlier, with the MOE reporting just a 0.28% discrepancy between the pre-count and the scrutinized votes in March’s legislative elections.

Petro’s mistrust in the pre-count may be valid in the case of a tight race with razor-thin margins but not so much if there is a clear winner. And, in any case, the scrutiny process should clear up any doubts. 

“In Colombian elections, it is judges who determine electoral disputes and not a logistical operator such as Thomas Greg & Sons,” explained Sergio Guzmán, director at Colombia Risk Analysis, a political risk think tank.

Bigger fish to fry

While Petro aims his crusade against Thomas Greg & Sons, a firm which he has clashed with on a range of issues, there are other, more prescient threats to electoral integrity.

“I think that concerns about voters being coerced to vote are legitimate… but I think concerns that somebody will steal the election are overblown,” said Guzmán.

International observers including the United Nations have warned that violence may undermine the elections, particularly in areas under armed group control. 

Vote buying is also a well-documented phenomenon in many regions of the country.

While Petro has some basis for his allegations of voter fraud, there is no evidence of software manipulation determining presidential election results in Colombia.

In a razor-thin race, observers would be wise to wait for the scrutinized vote count to declare a winner. But for now, Petro’s warnings about election-rigging appear to be largely overblown.

The post The truth behind Petro’s claims of Colombia voting fraud appeared first on The Bogotá Post.