The presence of the AFE Director at a party event: a constitutional violation that warrants dismissal
On August 2, 2026, according to publicly available news reports (TV Florida, Caras y Caretas, and Florida Noticias), Accountant Robert Bouvier, in his capacity as Director of the State Railways Administration (AFE) appointed to represent the opposition, participated in a national meeting of Vamos Uruguay / Lista 10 of the Colorado Party, led by Senator Pedro Bordaberry, held at the facilities of the Rural Association of Florida. The event was described as political-party in nature, aimed at unity, political agreement, and camaraderie (with a barbecue included), and Bouvier was invited and expressly introduced as a “friend.”
AFE is an autonomous entity (a decentralized commercial service in the form of an autonomous entity). In that capacity, its directors are explicitly covered by Article 77, numeral 4°, of the Constitution of the Oriental Republic of Uruguay. The text is unequivocal and does not allow for elastic interpretations or factual exceptions:
“Judicial magistrates, members of the Administrative Litigation Tribunal and the Court of Auditors, Directors of Autonomous Entities and Decentralized Services, active military personnel, regardless of rank, and police officials of any category, must abstain, under penalty of dismissal and disqualification for two to ten years from holding any public office, from being part of political commissions or clubs, signing party manifestos, authorizing the use of their name, and, in general, executing any other public or private act of a political nature, except for voting.”
The only exception provided by the constituent itself is attendance at “party organizations that have the specific task of studying government, legislation, and administration issues.” A national meeting of a party nature, aimed at unity and political agreement, with the public presentation of the Director as a “friend” of the faction, does not fit within that narrow technical exception. On the contrary, it is a typical act of a political-party nature.
The Constitution does not require the Director to speak, sign manifestos, or occupy a speaker's place. The governing verb is “execute any other public or private act of a political nature.” The mere physical presence, broadcast, photographed, and politically capitalized by the organizers, constitutes an act of that nature. This has been upheld by the complaint filed by Colorado convention member Esequiel Ibarra before the Board of Transparency and Public Ethics (JUTEP), which correctly invokes both Article 77.4 and the principles of impartiality, integrity, and neutrality of Law No. 19.823 (Code of Ethics in Public Service). The doctrine and logic of “being and appearing” reinforce this reading: institutional neutrality is compromised not only by active action but also by the appearance of identification between the public office and a political faction.
The sanction is of a constitutional nature and applies immediately in its terms: dismissal and disqualification for two to ten years from holding any public office. The authority to know and apply these penalties for “electoral offenses” corresponds to the Electoral Court. The complaint can be filed by either Chamber, the Executive Power, or the national authorities of the parties. JUTEP, for its part, can investigate and refer background information to the competent authority.
This norm is not an anachronistic formality. It originates from the 1934 Constitution, was maintained in 1942 and 1952 (with the added technical exception), and responds to a fundamental state reason: to preserve the neutrality of autonomous entities and decentralized services, which manage public assets and services, in the face of party contention. The directors of these organizations are not mere career officials; they are appointed with political criteria, but once in office, they are subject to a reinforced abstention regime. Allowing their participation in faction events distorts institutional autonomy and erodes public trust in the impartiality of the State.
The reported facts, if confirmed by the competent authority through the photographic, audiovisual, and journalistic evidence provided, constitute a clear, direct, and serious violation of the constitutional mandate. There is no room for mitigating factors of “friendship,” “social character,” or “non-verbal intervention.” The constituent did not distinguish. The legal consequence is dismissal.
In the opinion of this columnist, Mr. Bouvier should immediately resign from his position on the AFE Board. It is not just about complying with the letter of the Constitution: it is about protecting the institutional integrity of the Colorado Party. Dragging a dismissal process before the Electoral Court, with the inevitable media exposure and political wear that it generates, only weakens the political force that appointed him. A voluntary and timely resignation would be the clearest gesture of responsibility towards the party, towards republican institutionalism, and towards the citizenry. Any delay only aggravates the political cost and confirms the perception that constitutional norms are applied selectively.
Note on methodological rigor and legal protection
This analysis is based exclusively on publicly available information disseminated by the press (Caras y Caretas, TV Florida, Florida Noticias, and official sources of the Uruguayan Constitution and regulations) and on the literal and systematic interpretation of the current constitutional text. It does not constitute a judicial ruling, binding opinion, or assertion of uncontested facts. The definitive determination of the existence of the violation and the application of the sanction corresponds exclusively to the Electoral Court (and, if applicable, to the bodies that must enforce the dismissal), with full respect for the right to defense, due process, and the presumption of innocence until a firm resolution is reached. This document is an exercise in constitutional doctrine and objective legal analysis, without intent to injure, defame, or cause personal harm. Any legal action must take into account the doctrinal nature and the public source of the invoked data.
The Constitution is not an à la carte menu. When a Director of an autonomous entity executes a political act, the consequence is dismissal. Thus says the Magna Carta.
