The controversy over pension for Fujimori sparks tension between Congress presidents.

In a recent statement, Eduardo Salhuana, President of the Congress of the Republic, revealed that it is "likely" that Alejandro Soto, his predecessor in office, was aware of the decision to grant a pension to former President Alberto Fujimori. This announcement has generated considerable uproar in the political and social spheres, as well as a debate about the legitimacy of the measure and the possible implications it could have in the current political context of the country. Salhuana explained that the pension request submitted by Fujimori was filed at the end of April and that, according to legal procedure, its viability and the existence of resources to carry it out were evaluated. "These three reports arrived in June and on July 10," he detailed, indicating that the process was carried out relatively quickly, which raises suspicions about its transparency. The statement from the President of Congress suggests that the decision was not made in isolation and that, given the political repercussions of the issue, it is reasonable to assume that Soto was aware of the situation. "We found out when the matter was completely resolved," Salhuana stated, implying that there was a lack of communication between the different congressional leaderships regarding this delicate issue. In response to these claims, Alejandro Soto has used his social media to deny any insinuation of complicity in the approval of the pension. In his message, he firmly stated that the leadership he presided over did not discuss or approve any request in favor of Fujimori, creating a clear discrepancy between his account of events and that of the current President of Congress. This conflict between Salhuana and Soto highlights the lack of clarity in the processes within Congress, as well as the need for greater transparency in decision-making involving controversial figures like Alberto Fujimori. The situation is further complicated as constitutional experts Aníbal Quiroga and Natale Amprimo have indicated that granting the pension to Fujimori would be illegal, given that the law stipulates that the benefit is suspended if the person is accused by Congress, a point that could lead to future legal challenges. The controversy over the pension for Fujimori has not only sparked criticism from the political sphere but has also inflamed discontent among the citizenry, who watch with concern how public affairs are handled. Many citizens feel that the decision to grant a pension to a former president facing serious accusations is an insult to justice and to the victims of his government. In the midst of this turmoil, it is crucial to clarify the procedure that was followed for the approval of this pension and who was responsible at each stage of the process. Congress has a responsibility to be accountable to the public, and a lack of transparency could further erode public trust in institutions. The polarization surrounding Fujimori's figure and legacy remains a hot topic in Peruvian politics. The granting of pensions and benefits to questioned political figures raises questions about justice and the collective memory of a country still grappling with the aftermath of years of political and social conflict. In summary, the current situation requires deep reflection on ethics in politics and the imperative to ensure that decisions affecting public figures are made with the utmost rigor and transparency. The citizenry deserves clarity and justice, especially in such sensitive cases as that of Alberto Fujimori. The future of Congress and its credibility with the public depend on how they address this and other similar controversies.