Colombia’s President-elect Abelardo de la Espriella recently expressed his intention to dismantle the Special Jurisdiction for Peace (JEP), Colombia’s transitional justice tribunal. This announcement raises questions about whether lasting peace can exist without mechanisms for accountability and reconciliation. This comes just weeks before De la Espriella is set to take office, while legal experts note that the JEP cannot be eliminated through executive action because it was established through a constitutional framework tied to the 2016 peace agreement between the Colombian government and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC).

De la Espriella has labeled the tribunal a “failed” court, arguing that “the JEP has produced absolutely nothing because there has been neither justice, nor truth, nor reparations.” De la Espriella also criticized the tribunal’s budget: “What worries me today is the amount of money that this monstrosity costs and what we can return to the pockets of Colombians.” Colombia’s previous president, Gustavo Petro, has criticized the JEP’s budget during his term while reaffirming its importance, stating that “establishing the judicial truth about the conflict is fundamental to national reconciliation.” Alejandro Ramelli, the current president of the JEP, told the Associated Press that cutting the tribunal’s budget would have serious consequences for the “fundamental right of access to justice,” and reaffirmed its effectiveness, asserting, “We now know the true scale of FARC kidnappings, the recruitment of more than 18,677 children, the sexual violence committed by the FARC and the extrajudicial killings carried out by security forces.” Legal expert Nicolás Mayorga established De la Espriella’s inability under Colombia’s Constitution to eliminate the tribunal, explaining that, “Because it has a constitutional foundation, any attempt to dismantle it would require a constitutional reform approved by Congress through a new legislative act.” 

Critics of the JEP have raised concerns that victims of the armed conflict may feel justice has not been fully achieved, especially when individuals responsible for serious crimes receive punishments in different forms, such as sanctions rather than traditional prison sentences. This is critical because peace processes relating to the armed conflict must be viewed as legitimate in the eyes of the Colombian public. While these concerns are understandable, dismantling the JEP risks slowing or discontinuing investigations altogether. The criticism of the budget highlights a similar issue: eliminating the court could save money, but at what cost? The absence of armed conflict does not equal sustainable peace. Institutions like the JEP, capable of confronting past abuses, recognizing victims, and preventing grievances from contributing to future instability, will help foster peace. Shifting the focus from dissolving the JEP towards addressing legitimate criticisms through reforms could be essential for long-term reconciliation.   

The conflict between the government and the FARC lasted over five decades, characterized by kidnappings, guerrilla warfare, and widespread violence against civilians. In 2016, the government and the FARC signed a peace agreement, creating the JEP to investigate conflict-related crimes and to hold the FARC, the Colombian government, and civilians accountable. The court was originally established with a mandate to continue operations until 2028, with an additional five-year period for further trials, and a second optional period depending on Colombia’s Congress. Since 2018, the JEP has overseen cases involving over 14,000 individuals connected to crimes committed during the conflict. The majority of these suspects are former FARC guerrillas, most of the remaining are former security forces, and a small number are civilians. 

Colombia’s armed conflict with the FARC may have officially ended in 2016, but rebuilding trust and justice will take much longer. Lasting peace cannot depend on the absence of violence; it must address the causes and consequences of violence. Critics of the JEP have raised legitimate concerns regarding its budget and nontraditional punishments, but eliminating the court without replacing it risks leaving victims without answers and unresolved questions of accountability. Thousands of Colombian families are still seeking answers; disappeared persons, child recruitment victims, and survivors need justice, but peace requires acknowledging their experiences. Colombia’s experience offers nations attempting to emerge from conflict a lesson: peace takes not only agreements and signatures, but institutions that help society confront the wounds left behind. A peace agreement can stop a war, but only long-term institutions can prevent the grievances of war from becoming the conflicts of the future.