Anaya demands an investigation into AMLO's involvement in the fuel theft case.

It was a morning when the halls of the Senate were once again filled with political tension: a new crisis was shaking the institutions. Ricardo Anaya Cortés, of the PAN party in the upper house, appeared before the press with a direct demand: that former President Andrés Manuel López Obrador be investigated for the so-called fuel theft scandal, and that, if necessary, "whoever must be brought down."

The Attorney General's Office and the security cabinet reported the arrest of 14 people linked to a fuel smuggling and illegal trafficking network, stemming, among other leads, from the seizure of the Challenge Procyon vessel in the port of Tampico. Authorities have said this operation allowed them to follow financial and logistical leads that led to arrests.

Anaya called the affair "the largest corruption scandal in the country's history" and demanded that it be investigated without exonerations, even in cases that could implicate former officials close to the previous administration. He compared the estimated damage with cases like Segalmex and the Estafa Maestra (Master Scam) to gauge the alleged impact. These statements have put the spotlight on political responsibility and the need—according to the opposition—for public and verifiable responses.

In his public statements, Anaya and some media outlets have cited estimates that place the potential damage to the treasury from this form of huachicol tax at around 170 billion pesos. Regardless of the exact figure—which the investigation will need to determine—the mention points to a potential budget gap with consequences for public finances, investor confidence, and the perception of control over customs and ports.

Among those arrested is Vice Admiral Manuel Roberto "F," named in the investigation file and publicly linked as the nephew-in-law of former Navy Secretary Rafael Ojeda Durán. The presence of military or former military personnel in the investigations raises a debate about internal controls, institutional trust, and civilian oversight—issues that, until now, official spokespersons have tried to dismiss as isolated incidents.

Various reports indicate that the fuel's routes and origins have been linked to shipments from the United States, and that international investigations—including U.S. authorities and companies—have provided information or leads that have helped open new lines of investigation. The seizure of the ship with fuel supposedly declared as exempt petrochemicals and the traceability of the cargo were key elements in the investigation.

1. Judicially: The Prosecutor's Office could request new arrest warrants, present evidence to link the case to proceedings, and pursue financial investigations to support the hypothesis of tax evasion and organized crime. Several reports indicate that more warrants and hearings are about to be finalized.
2. Politically, the opposition will demand appearances, transparency regarding the origin of the investigation, and, above all, a ban on impunity if public officials are found responsible. The former president in question will have to take a clear position—out of political obligation and in the face of public pressure.

The combination of criminal investigations, political claims, and the economic dimension of the case places the country before a classic dilemma: ensuring an independent judicial process while simultaneously responding to the need for public clarity. The questions at the center of the agenda today are simple in form but complex in their resolution: Were there institutional failures that allowed a network to operate? What was the scope of the events, and who will be held accountable if crimes are proven? The answer will depend on the documentation provided by the Prosecutor's Office and the political will of all parties to allow justice to take its course.