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.

Iván Cepeda (from Twitter)

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.

Former Colombian Foreign Minister Álvaro Leyva Durán launched a blistering attack against President Gustavo Petro just days before Colombia heads to the polls on May 31, warning of what he described as looming threats to the country’s democratic institutions and accusing the government of preparing to reject an unfavorable electoral outcome.

In a lengthy manifesto published Tuesday on the social media platform X under the title “Propuesta de Álvaro Leyva Durán al País para las Elecciones,” the veteran Conservative politician claimed Petro fears both political defeat and possible legal consequences should right-wing presidential candidate Abelardo De la Espriella emerge victorious.

“Petro knows that his future depends on his successor protecting him from justice,” Leyva wrote, adding that De la Espriella “could win the elections in the first round.”

According to Leyva, the former member of the M-19 guerrilla and senator understands that with De la Espriella in office, “he himself could end up in prison. And that is why he has sought to derail the candidate and will refuse to recognize his victory.”

The explosive accusations mark the latest escalation in the increasingly bitter campaign season ahead of what analysts are calling one of Colombia’s most polarized elections in decades. Leyva, once one of Petro’s closest political allies and his first foreign minister, has in recent months become one of the president’s fiercest critics.

In the manifesto, Leyva intertwined personal memories of Colombia’s turbulent political history with warnings about what he believes is unfolding behind the scenes of the current administration.

“At my age, I know these kinds of stories well,” he wrote, before recalling his close relationship with slain Conservative leader Álvaro Gómez Hurtado.

“My father, Jorge Leyva, gave me at birth the name of his friend Álvaro Gómez Hurtado. When I was 12 years old, Álvaro would speak to me about politics and explain the world to me with a globe.”

Leyva recounted how Gómez and his own father were exiled after the 1953 military coup, and how decades later he worked alongside Gómez politically, even helping negotiate his release after he was kidnapped by the M-19 guerrilla movement in 1988.

“In 1995, after leaving a lecture at Sergio Arboleda University, Álvaro Gómez and I shook hands for the last time,” Leyva wrote. “Because minutes later, I watched in horror as he was assassinated in his car. It was a national tragedy.”

The former minister used Gómez’s legacy as a contrast to his eventual disillusionment with Petro.

“Because of that, I believed I could work with Gustavo Petro,” he said. “When he invited me to become his minister, I accepted because I believed him to be an honorable man. But I was wrong.”

Leyva then delivered some of his harshest remarks yet against the president.

“I came to know the monster from within: his vileness and degradation,” he wrote. “At enormous personal and family cost, I dared to denounce his baseness and his disrespect for the office.”

He added: “Because character demands that one not remain silent in the face of ignominy. And because of everything I witnessed, because of the rotten environment in which he (Petro) moves, I know what the government is plotting.”

Leyva also alleged that Petro’s radicalised supporters to intimidate opponents and manipulate the electoral process. “Today, while Abelardo wages a major democratic battle, Petro incites his followers to commit all kinds of outrages,” he wrote. “There has even been talk of snipers during the campaign.”

Without providing evidence, Leyva claimed that attempts had been made to invalidate De la Espriella’s candidacy, suppress favorable polling data and mobilize state-backed political machinery to influence the vote.

“On election day, rivers of money will flow in an attempt to stop De la Espriella,” he warned.

The former foreign minister also accused Petro of laying the groundwork to dispute the legitimacy of the election itself.

“The president has also spent months constructing a narrative of electoral manipulation,” Leyva wrote. In this way, according to the author, he is “weaving an argument to reject an adverse electoral outcome” that he already senses is inevitable. “That is the false ace up Petro’s sleeve,” he continued. “And like any gambler fueled by hatred, he will use it.”

Leyva also referenced U.S. Republican lawmakers from Florida, María Elvira Salazar and Rick Scott, claiming both were aware of the risks facing Colombia’s democratic process. “Scott is an ally of Colombian democracy and correctly sensed what the national government is planning,” he wrote.

In one of the most dramatic sections of the manifesto, Leyva proposed that Petro temporarily step aside if he alleges fraud after either the first or second round of voting.

“I make a proposal: if in the first or second round Petro claims there was fraud, he should step down from office under the terms of Article 193 of the Constitution,” Leyva wrote.

He suggested that the vice president temporarily assume office while an international commission made up of U.S. lawmakers, European parliamentarians, the Vatican and the United Nations review the vote count and oversee the transition of power before August 7.

“Think about it, Gustavo. Think about it carefully,” Leyva concluded. “Because the alternative will not end well for you. Abelardo De la Espriella will be the next president. And you will have to accept that reality, whether you like it or not.”