The creation of the International Commission against Corruption and Impunity in Honduras (CICIH), which was a major campaign commitment of President Xiomara Castro, has been delayed once more following the fifth renewal of the memorandum of understanding with the United Nations. The news, revealed this week, aligns with the ongoing absence of advancement in the National Congress regarding the approval of constitutional amendments crucial for the operation of the anti-corruption mechanism.
The deadlock has sparked renewed criticism from different segments of civil society and from the global community, who see the postponement as an indicator of diminishing government dedication to combating impunity. The absence of legislative agreement, especially regarding the removal of parliamentary immunity, is hindering the successful implementation of the CICIH, even after a second official proposal was submitted to the UN in September 2024.
Responses from institutions and society
The executive arm has frequently expressed its readiness to create the commission, highlighting advancements in discussions with the United Nations. Nevertheless, the prerequisites for its establishment hinge on legal and constitutional amendments that require approval from Congress, where adequate backing has not been obtained.
Some key industries have voiced their discontent regarding the management of the recent expansion.
A member of the National Party in congress referred to the renewal as “a setback for those who had faith in the promise of justice,” highlighting the dissatisfaction within the political opposition. At the same time, groups like the Association for a More Just Society (ASJ), Transparency International, and the Bar Association have urged for the removal of the institutional barrier that is stopping the project’s progress.
Political obstacles and public weariness
The process to establish the CICIH faces multiple obstacles at the political level. Among these are the structural reforms that would involve the removal of legislative protections considered by social actors to be an obstacle to the effective fight against corruption. The lack of political will in Congress has been pointed out by various actors as one of the main causes of the stalemate.
Over two years into Castro’s leadership, various civil organizations and community groups criticize the discrepancy between early promises and actual measures taken. These groups highlight that the continuous delay of crucial resolutions has diminished trust in the administration and the institutional framework as a whole.
Appeals for measures and global influence
The updated agreement does not specify an exact date for the creation of the CICIH. International observers warn this might threaten the nation’s trustworthiness regarding global collaboration. The appearance of stagnation has led to doubt among foreign entities, possibly resulting in adverse impacts on the financial and technical aid Honduras receives to bolster its democratic institutions.
Considering this situation, multiple perspectives emphasize the pressing necessity to move forward by promptly endorsing the essential reforms, enabling the conclusion of a definitive agreement with the UN. These measures, they assert, would not only initiate a strategy to tackle corruption but also demonstrate a dedication to transparency and responsibility.
Uncertain institutional outlook
The extended duration of setting up the CICIH underscores the fundamental challenges Honduras encounters in creating an autonomous and efficient framework. The continuous presence of legal barriers, along with the absence of political agreement, has stalled a key initiative intended to address impunity in the nation.
The scenario emphasizes the conflicts between the global obligations undertaken by the executive branch and the internal workings of the legislature, alongside the difficulty in turning political promises into tangible structural changes. At the same time, the nation lacks an international support system to probe high-stake cases, bringing into question the endurance of institutional initiatives to fight corruption in both the short and medium term.