Former President Ollanta Humala questioned the judges who ruled on criminal cassation appeals, arguing that the court failed to show impartiality when comparing his money laundering case to that of Keiko Fujimori.
Speaking in an interview with Rosa María Palacios for the program Sin Guión, Humala said the judicial decision was a call to attention for the reporting magistrate and the signing judges. He stated that if judges granted the appeal to Fujimori, they were obligated to grant it to him as well, adding that Fujimori should have been imprisoned just as he was.
Differences in Campaign Financing Cases
Humala acknowledged that while both legal proceedings involve political campaign contributions, clear distinctions separate his organization from Fujimorism. He specified two main aspects that differentiate the two cases.
First, Humala argued that his party did not receive irregular money, whereas Fujimori did receive funds. Second, he said accusations against other political parties stemmed from corporate sector financing, while his case was a political maneuver driven by ideological opposition to his government.
Humala added that authorities accused his party of receiving funds from leftist governments rather than business executives. He insisted that the money laundering charges against him lack technical foundation and stem from political bias against his presidential administration.
