While some defend her, others maintain that Carolina Ache was politically disloyal

By Ashley Benavídez

A case that returns to the scene and revives the question: Was Carolina Ache disloyal?

Two years after the controversy began over the processing of the passport granted to Sebastian Marset, the episode returns to the center of the political debate. Former Foreign Minister Francisco Bustillo, who resigned amid the controversy, decided to present his reading of the events that led to his departure and that of other high-profile officials. In his story, the former minister maintains that the former vice chancellor had a decisive role and leaves raised the question that hovers over the public discussion: whether Carolina Ache was disloyal.

The former chancellor affirms that he never received a clear explanation about the reasons for the administrative summary that was initiated against him and against the then legal director, Carlos Mata. According to him, they notified him through the press and he only had a single instance with the case's investigator. From their perspective, the process lacks foundation and fails to understand what it seeks to clarify.

The envelope, the messages and the dispute over internal orders

One of the most controversial points revolves around an envelope that would have been sent to the Presidency with sensitive information linked to the exchanges between Ache and Guillermo Maciel. Bustillo maintains that he never saw the contents and that, as he remembers, the former vice chancellor had wanted to give it to him a day before. He assures that he told him that it was appropriate to send it to the Legal Directorate, although he is not sure what happened next.

Mata declared that Bustillo himself gave the order to send him to Executive Tower, something that the former minister flatly denies. According to his version, at that time he was focused on an official trip and does not remember giving instructions. In his opinion, even if such an order had existed, there would be no irregularity, since the Presidency is the highest administrative authority. However, the political debate focused on whether the sending of the material sought to hide information.

Doubts about destroyed documents and Ache's role

Asked if documentation could have been destroyed, Bustillo maintains that he does not know if that material constituted a public document or if it was part of a formal file. He states that the only thing he saw was an envelope delivered by Ache and that, even during interrogations, officials declared that they had no evidence that the recorded messages were part of an administrative procedure.

The former minister once again targeted the former vice chancellor by remembering that, for months, never mentioned his meeting with Marset's lawyer or other contacts related to the case. According to Bustillo, she hid relevant information that would have been key to evaluating the situation from the beginning. He assures that he found out about the meeting with Balbi thanks to a tweet published by the journalist Gabriel Pereyra, when the parliamentary questioning of the August 22 of 2022.

Meetings in the Prado and an increasingly tense internal climate

According to Bustillo's reconstruction, there were two key meetings at the Prado presidential residence. The first took place on a Friday and involved teams from the Interior and Foreign Ministry trying to reconstruct what each agency had done. According to him, in that meeting Maciel mentioned communications with Ache, but the topic did not generate further discussion.

Everything changed on Monday, when Bustillo returned to the Prado after learning the day before of the exchanges that the former vice chancellor had with different actors in the case. He assures that he arrived indignant because he understood that essential information had been hidden from him for a long time while he was preparing his intervention in Parliament.

The interpellation, the statements and the accusation of concealment

Bustillo maintains that there was never any intention to lie during the interrogation. According to him, both Heber and Maciel acknowledged that they knew who Marset was, and he admits that his mistake was having generalized by saying that “no one knew.” He explains that he was referring to his personal situation, since – as he claims – he was completely unaware of Ache and Maciel's previous contacts.

The former chancellor affirms that the decision not to mention the messages in the questioning responded to the understanding that they had not influenced the passport process. He assures that the messages were on the table and that, if the Wide Front I was asking about them, they weren't going to hide. From his point of view, adding that element would have distorted a discussion that, according to him, was already fraught with political motivation.

The recording, the controversial advice and the final break

One of the most explosive episodes was the recording released in 2023 that led to the resignation of four leaders. Ache recorded a conversation in which Bustillo suggested he “lose your cell phone,” a phrase that he recognizes as a mistake. He affirms that he had no connection with the events investigated and that their intention was to lower him tension to a climate that had become unsustainable. He maintains that the former vice chancellor was already advised by his lawyer, Jorge Diaz, and that his own reaction was naive.

Bustillo believes that the recording had a clear objective: to shift responsibility to him. He points out that the former vice chancellor had refused to hand over the chats during the administrative investigation and that, when the formal request from the Prosecutor's Office became known, a scenario of growing nervousness was generated.

Loyalty, politics and an open closure

The former chancellor acknowledges that he acted under political discipline and that he remained silent at the request of the leadership to prevent the episode from becoming a major scandal in an election year. He says that he assumed the personal cost out of institutional responsibility and that his decision responded to a sense of loyalty to the government.

But when asked directly if Carolina Ache was disloyal, leaves the answer floating.

To what extent did the episode reveal individual errors, institutional failures or fractures of trust within the ruling party?