Colombia seeks to expand definition of terrorism in draft “counterterrorism statute”

Colombia’s proposed Antiterrorism Statute is a broad security bill aimed at illegal armed groups and organized crime. It would expand the government’s ability to investigate, prosecute, list, and punish conduct connected to terrorism. The proposal matters because it would shift counterterrorism toward stronger military and executive action.

For example, the draft could support a military approach that includes air strikes. It would also create a public National Registry of Terrorist Organizations and Actors. Listing people or groups could make it easier to freeze assets belonging to suspected terrorists and their financiers. Leaders of designated organizations could face a special prison regime.

The bill remains a proposal presented to Congress, based on a draft leaked to Caracol Radio. It would also create a presidential High Counterterrorism Commissioner and allow investigations and prosecutions of terrorism-related conduct abroad. If enacted, it could significantly broaden Colombia’s counterterrorism system and presidential powers.

The proposed bill would broaden Colombia’s criminal-law definition of terrorism. It describes terrorism as individual or collective conduct that produces “fear, panic or terror,” while creating risks, threats, or using violence. This language focuses on the effect and danger of conduct, not just the type of organization or attack involved.

The broader wording could cover conduct by individuals as well as groups. The bill also connects terrorism-related penalties to activities such as drone use, illegal mining, kidnapping, cybercrimes, riots, and attacks on critical infrastructure. Those activities would not necessarily all become terrorism automatically; the proposal creates or changes crimes and penalties related to “terrorism.”

The definition would give authorities a wider legal framework for counterterrorism prosecutions. The bill also allows investigations and prosecutions of terrorism financing, and material support conducted abroad. Its final reach would depend on the text Congress considers and any later legal review.

The proposal is extensive: Caracol Radio obtained a 116-page draft bill. It would create new crimes and modify penalties for many forms of conduct connected to terrorism. The list reaches beyond conventional attacks and includes economic crimes, public disorder, organized crime, and threats to infrastructure.

Examples include drone use, illegal mining, oil theft, gold extraction and sale, kidnapping, smuggling, human trafficking, drug trafficking, extortion, cybercrimes, election crimes, riots, and attacks on critical infrastructure. Riot penalties could rise by up to double when riots target law-enforcement units conducting operations or occur alongside listed terrorist organizations.

The bill would also allow Colombian authorities to investigate and prosecute terrorism financing, and material support abroad. These provisions show the proposal’s wide geographic and legal reach. However, the source describes a leaked draft, not an enacted law, so its provisions could still change during congressional consideration.

Placement on the proposed registry would have serious practical consequences. The bill says the public list would make it easier for authorities to freeze the assets of suspected terrorists and their financiers. A listing could therefore affect access to money and financial support.

The proposal also creates a special prison regime for leaders of designated terrorist organizations. In addition, the government could use a military approach against illegal armed groups and organized crime groups, including air strikes. These measures target both the finances and leadership of organizations identified under the statute.

The article does not state that registry placement automatically dissolves an organization or formally bans all operations. It does say people who believe they were falsely listed could challenge the decision before the National Security Council and the Council of State. The bill remains a proposal, so its final consequences would depend on congressional approval and implementation.

The proposal would change how citizens challenge military and law-enforcement operations linked to national security. It says the Council of State must hear constitutional protection lawsuits against the President or defense authorities when they concern operations to preserve national security. The Council of State is Colombia’s top administrative court.

Under the bill, those lawsuits would be heard in the first instance by that court. The article contrasts this with the current possibility of seeking legal protection in lower courts. This change could affect challenges involving alleged constitutional-rights violations or requests to stop an operation.

The stated consequence is that suspending military operations would become more difficult for citizens. The provision would concentrate initial review at a higher court rather than allowing lower courts to provide that legal support first. The bill is still a draft, so Congress could alter the provision before any change takes effect.

Due process means the government should follow fair procedures before imposing serious consequences. It generally includes notice of the accusation, a chance to respond, and an impartial decision. Judicial review means an independent court can examine whether officials acted lawfully and respected constitutional rights. These safeguards matter when the state labels someone a terrorist.

Under this bill, a public registry could make it easier to freeze assets, while designated leaders could face a special prison regime. A false listing could therefore affect money, reputation, liberty, and organizational leadership. The proposal allows challenges before the National Security Council and the Council of State, Colombia’s top administrative court.

Those review mechanisms are important because security powers can have lasting effects. They give listed people a route to contest mistakes and give courts a role in checking government action. The article does not detail every procedure, deadline, or evidentiary standard, so the bill’s exact safeguards remain uncertain.