Investigation Launched as $470 Million Contract Raises Red Flags for Two Supreme Court Ministers

Original article: Contrato de $470 millones pone bajo la lupa a dos ministras de la Corte Suprema

The allegations surrounding a multimillion-dollar contract awarded by the Judiciary have sparked new scrutiny regarding the administrative management of the institution.

The Organization of Judiciary Workers (OTJ) has urged the Supreme Court to conduct an inquiry against ministers María Cristina Gajardo and Adelita Ravanales, claiming that both may have facilitated, through direct negotiation, the awarding of a $470 million contract to a company lacking the necessary experience, as it was established less than a year prior.

Next week, the Supreme Court will review the complaint against both ministers and determine the subsequent steps.

How Was the Controversial Contract Awarded? 

The situation began when the Administrative Corporation of the Judiciary (CAPJ) awarded, through direct negotiation, a contract aimed at developing a unified judicial resolution search engine and a judgment anonymization system to Replai SpA. This decision was justified by the purported experience of the company in the required services, despite its establishment less than a year ago and with no prior commercial record. In fact, its first invoices were issued precisely under this agreement with the Judiciary, raising questions about the contracting process.

On October 12, 2023, the company issued the first invoice related to the contract, exceeding $47 million.

According to information published by El Mostrador, the company’s recent formation raised doubts about its capacity to undertake such a large project. Concerns included that the company had no registered clients, billing history, VAT payments, or tax declarations at the time the contract was awarded, leading to questions about how it could have met the required financial criteria.

In this context, sources indicate that Minister María Cristina Gajardo may have supported the initiative, and representatives from Replai held meetings with officials from the Corporation’s IT Department before the contract was formally signed.

Additionally, it’s suggested that both Gajardo and Minister Adelita Ravanales participated in approving payments via emails and in signing the Unique Receipt Forms for Goods and Services (FURBS). Moreover, Gajardo was listed as the project coordinator.

According to the referenced media, experts consulted believe such actions could deviate from standard procedures, as the acceptance of services and the authorization of contracts of this nature typically fall to administrative authorities rather than Supreme Court ministers.

Furthermore, the Advisory Council of the CAPJ authorized replacing the initially required guarantees with a bond certificate equivalent to 1,298 UF, a decision that has also faced scrutiny.

Subsequently, after receiving nearly $500 million for the project’s diagnostic phase, Replai proposed a new plan to develop the final software, costing over $1.1 billion plus VAT. However, this initiative was not approved immediately and was left pending evaluation by a technical committee.

OTJ Pushes for Investigation into Ministers and Considers Requesting Their Removal 

In an interview with El Ciudadano, Marcelo Acevedo, president of the Organization of Judicial Workers (OTJ), stated that the evidence collected thus far indicates clear signs of potential corruption that need to be examined and investigated.

He also recalled that the OTJ is the organization that requested the administrative inquiry against both ministers, so they expect the full court to conduct the appropriate investigations.

Additionally, he announced they are considering requesting the Supreme Court to initiate proceedings under Article 80 of the Constitution—which regulates the procedure for requesting the removal of supreme court judges for notable neglect of duties or misconduct—arguing that the judges’ behavior in opening the removal file constitutes serious misconduct.

«The seriousness of these incidents warrants action, especially considering that the Supreme Court itself has established this criterion in cases involving medical leave. Therefore, when there are signs of a situation like this, it is appropriate to apply the same sanction and measure regarding the removal of these two ministers,» he concluded. 

While the Supreme Court prepares to review the complaint filed by the OTJ, the case continues to raise questions about the mechanisms of control and transparency in the Judiciary’s contracting processes. The ruling from the highest court will shape the course of an investigation that could lead to further administrative measures concerning the involved ministers.