45 deputies voted in favor of lifting the immunity privilege to criminal judge of the Supreme Court Celso Gamboa, investigated for influence peddling; lifting the immunity should allow for Gamboa to face the accusations; however, controversy and doubts raised as the vote in the Legislative Assembly was done publicly even though the regulations of the Assembly establish in article 101 that voting processes in relation to accusations or suspensions of public workers must be done in secret.

Through his Twitter account, Gamboa had stated just a few days back that he wanted the immunity lifted, “I have nothing to be concerned about”, but he also commented that in the event that the voting was done publicly, he would be “obligated” to present “different appeals” since he was not going to allow “violations” to his fundamental rights.

Some of the members of congress were concerned that doing the voting act publicly will make the act null; while others are of the criteria that it needed to be made public because Costa Rica demands accountability and to make the process more transparent; they are also of the opinion that making the process public won’t have any repercussions since in the past they have done secret voting and the Journalists’ Board appealed to the Constitutional Court and the Court voted in favor of the journalists.

“Mr. Celso has several months of being suspended but still receives his salary, the judicial process is not progressing, we had to lift his immunity so that the necessary judiciary measures are taken and speed up the process”, explained Deputy Nadia Jimenez.

The district attorney has an open investigation against Gamboa which states that between November 2015 and January 2016, Gamboa who was the sub-chief of the Public Ministry had used his position to obtain illegal advantages in favor of Johnny Araya, major of San Jose. He is also investigated in relation to the china cement corruption scandal “Cementazo” and a trip he made to Panama with Juan Carlos Bolaños who is currently discounting six months of preventive custody.