What Happened
A legal dispute has grown around the Comptroller General’s findings in the case involving former vice president José Gabriel “Gaby” Carrizo, with one lawyer arguing the auditors’ work cannot simply be dismissed. Angelo Madrid said the principle of freedom of proof applies and that any challenge to the material must be examined through the proper judicial channels.
The debate intensified after the Public Prosecutor’s Office opened an investigation into officials at the Comptroller’s Office following what was described as an interruption during an interview involving auditors linked to the Carrizo matter. Comptroller Anel Flores later went to the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office to ask about his staff, who were said by some accounts to have been questioned for several hours.
Legal Arguments Raised
Rolando Villarreal said the interview should focus on strengthening the Comptroller’s reports on Carrizo, not on investigating the auditors themselves. Madrid added that any procedural flaw in how the information was gathered could be challenged before a Guarantee Court, which would decide whether the material is admitted at that stage.
According to Madrid, the auditors’ findings are not yet evidence in the strict legal sense. He explained that they function as elements of conviction that help build a case alongside testimonial, expert, and documentary material during the investigative process. In his view, even a claim of total or partial nullity does not automatically invalidate the material, because the matter must be resolved by the courts.
Why the Case Matters
The dispute places renewed attention on how anti-corruption investigations are handled in Panama and how evidence collected by oversight institutions is later used in criminal proceedings. The Comptroller’s Office maintains that its proceedings were not interrupted at any time, while criticism has focused on whether the actions surrounding the auditors could affect the investigation’s credibility.
Madrid said prosecutors are acting within the powers allowed by law and stressed that auditors must determine whether the documentary material is relevant for court admission. Journalist Julio Miller raised the possibility that the controversy could affect the case, while also citing claims from Carrizo’s defense about possible manipulation. The controversy now centers on how the courts will interpret the validity and weight of the Comptroller’s findings in the broader investigation.