Peru’s ousted ‘president of the poor’ gets 11-year sentence for rebellion

On 27 November 2025 Peru’s Supreme Court sentenced former president Pedro Castillo to 11 years, five months and 15 days in prison after finding him guilty of rebellion for his December 2022 attempt to dissolve Congress and rule by decree. Castillo, a rural teacher who campaigned as the country’s first president of the poor, was removed from office, detained and charged the same month; his eight-month trial concluded with acquittals on two lesser counts. The verdict follows a spate of high-profile convictions of former presidents and deepens a prolonged political and security crisis that began with Castillo’s confrontation with an opposition-dominated legislature.

• Sentence: The Supreme Court handed Castillo an 11 years, five months and 15 days prison term on 27 November 2025 for rebellion.
• Charges and outcome: He was convicted of rebellion but acquitted of abuse of power and disturbing public order after an eight-month trial; prosecutors had sought a 34-year sentence.
• Context of arrest: Castillo attempted to dissolve Congress in December 2022, was impeached the same day and arrested en route to the Mexican embassy where he planned to seek asylum.
• Regional pattern: A day earlier, ex-president Martín Vizcarra received a 14-year sentence for bribe-taking; two other former presidents, Ollanta Humala and Alejandro Toledo, are also held in a special Lima penitentiary for ex-leaders.
• Political fallout: Castillo’s arrest and removal triggered mass rural protests in 2022, during which security forces’ repression left at least 50 dead.
• Diplomatic tensions: The trial and a related asylum granted to Castillo’s former prime minister, Betssy Chávez, prompted Peru to break diplomatic ties with Mexico and publicly raise the prospect of extraordinary measures to secure fugitives.

Background

Pedro Castillo rose from a rural teaching and union background to win the presidency in 2021 on promises to redistribute power and lift Peru’s poor. His presidency was marked from the start by clashes with a Congress controlled by opposition parties; Cabinet turnover and criminal probes against officials became recurring features of governance. In December 2022, facing imminent impeachment for alleged corruption, Castillo announced the dissolution of Congress and the rule of emergency decrees — a move widely described as an attempted self-coup. Congress immediately impeached and removed him; he was detained while attempting to reach the Mexican embassy with family to request asylum.

The post-Castillo transition was turbulent. His ouster sparked large-scale protests concentrated in rural and working-class regions, which were met with a harsh security response that human rights groups and local officials said caused at least 50 deaths. Dina Boluarte, the former vice-president who succeeded him, presided over a period described in public accounts as a deep security crisis; she remained politically fragile and was later herself impeached in October. The cycle of prosecutions and imprisonments of former presidents has made the judiciary central to Peru’s political resolution process.

Main Event

On 27 November 2025 the Supreme Court delivered its judgment against Castillo, finding that his December 2022 attempt to dissolve Congress met the legal threshold for rebellion. The court specified a custodial sentence totaling 11 years, five months and 15 days; the panel acquitted him on counts of abuse of power and disturbing public order. Prosecutors had argued for a much longer penalty — seeking 34 years — while defense lawyers framed the case as politicized and appealed to due process concerns throughout the trial.

The prosecution’s narrative focused on the December events: the proclamation to suspend Congress, the promulgation of decrees without legislative backing, and actions by parts of Castillo’s inner cabinet that the state framed as an effort to subvert constitutional order. Several cabinet members refused to follow the dissolution directive and quickly distanced themselves from the president, undermining his attempt. Castillo was arrested by security forces while heading to the Mexican embassy, and authorities placed him in the same special penitentiary in Lima used for other former presidents pending trial.

The trial also intersected with diplomatic and asylum developments. Former prime minister Betssy Chávez, who appeared in the case as a defendant, was given asylum by the Mexican embassy earlier this month; Peru responded by severing diplomatic relations with Mexico and publicly accused the embassy of an “unfriendly act.” Peruvian officials have said they have not ruled out further measures to secure defendants who seek refuge abroad, a stance that has escalated tensions between the two governments.

Analysis & Implications

The conviction cements a pattern in which Peru’s judiciary is increasingly decisive in determining the fates of former heads of state. That pattern has two immediate effects: it signals that courtroom accountability is now a central route for addressing alleged misconduct by presidents, and it risks reinforcing perceptions among parts of the population that political battles are being settled in courts rather than at the ballot box. Both dynamics can deepen polarization and reduce trust in institutions that are expected to be impartial arbiters.

For Peru’s left and rural constituencies, the sentence may be experienced as both vindication and grievance: vindication for those who view the constitution as having been defended, grievance for Castillo’s supporters who saw him as their representative. This duality raises the chance of renewed protest or localized unrest if leaders or social movements frame the conviction as selective justice. Security forces’ previous responses to unrest, which resulted in significant loss of life, increase the stakes for how future demonstrations are handled.

Regionally, the diplomatic rupture with Mexico signals that domestic criminal cases can carry international consequences. Mexico’s granting of asylum to a high-profile former official prompted a forceful reaction from Lima and underscores how asylum decisions interact with bilateral ties. International observers and rights bodies will likely scrutinize both the fairness of trials and the proportionality of state responses to street protests.

Comparison & Data

The table highlights a concentrated pattern: multiple recent former presidents face incarceration or long sentences. Castillo’s eight-month trial culminated in a sentence substantially shorter than the 34 years prosecutors requested but long enough to remove him from the public arena for a decade. Observers note that the jail terms for recent ex-presidents are contributing to an erosion of traditional elite immunity and are reshaping political calculations ahead of future elections.

Reactions & Quotes

Government and judicial authorities framed the ruling as an enforcement of constitutional order. Officials say the sentence affirms the separation of powers after a president attempted to suspend the legislature; critics counter that criminal prosecutions have become a political tool. Below are representative responses and context.

“The court’s decision upholds the constitutional separation of powers.”

Peru Supreme Court (ruling summary)

This statement, issued alongside the judgement, was presented by the court as the legal justification for the sentence. The court emphasized the need to deter attempts to dissolve democratic institutions; defenders of Castillo argue that political motives shaped the legal strategy.

“Many of Castillo’s supporters continue to see this as selective justice rather than an impartial process.”

Human rights monitor (regional NGO commentary)

A regional human rights monitor warned that prosecutions without transparent, uniformly applied standards risk fueling further unrest. The organization urged independent review and recommended steps to reduce the likelihood of violent confrontations during demonstrations.

“The political cost of relying primarily on courts to settle disputes will be paid in public trust.”

Political analyst (university)

An academic analyst argued that continual criminal cases against former presidents may stabilize short-term accountability but corrode longer-term legitimacy of both judicial and political institutions. The analyst recommended reforms to reduce politicization of prosecutions and to strengthen electoral channels for dispute resolution.

Unconfirmed

• Reports that Peruvian authorities had developed concrete operational plans to storm the Mexican embassy to seize asylum-seeking officials remain publicly unverified.
• Allegations that certain members of Castillo’s inner circle orchestrated the dissolution attempt for personal gain lack publicly disclosed evidence beyond courtroom testimonies.
• Precise casualty figures tied directly to individual security operations during the 2022–2023 protests are still subject to investigation and may be revised.

Bottom Line

The Supreme Court’s conviction of Pedro Castillo for rebellion marks a decisive legal judgment in a chapter of Peruvian politics defined by institutional confrontation and judicial intervention. The sentence removes a polarizing figure from immediate political life but does not resolve the deeper causes of citizen disaffection that propelled his rise: inequality, weak institutions, and contestation over control of the state.

Expect continued political turbulence: the judiciary’s central role in adjudicating presidential misconduct, diplomatic friction with Mexico, and unresolved social grievances all point to a high-risk period for governance and public order. Policymakers, civil society and international observers will be watching whether Peru pursues institutional reforms that reduce politicized prosecutions and strengthen channels for peaceful political contestation.

Sources

• The Guardian — international news reporting (primary media source for this summary)