Up to 426 releases of political prisoners have been registered, according to the NGO Foro Penal, since January 8, 2026, although with restrictive precautionary measures that threaten their freedom. Photo: Capture Social Networks.
Guacamaya, February 9, 2026 — From the early hours of Sunday, Venezuelan authorities began a new phase of releasing political prisoners. This process has stood out from previous ones due to the liberation of key opposition leaders, though it also included controversial cases, such as that of Juan Pablo Guanipa, who was freed and then re-arrested just hours later for an alleged violation of precautionary measures.
According to the NGO Foro Penal, by 7:00 p.m. on February 8 at least 35 individuals identified as political prisoners had been released, among them notable figures. In addition to Guanipa, a leader of Primero Justicia, other prominent releases included Jesús Armas of the same party, Luis Somoza of Voluntad Popular, and Perkins Rocha of Vente Venezuela.
Other names on the list included leaders Catalina Ramos (Spanish-Venezuelan), Dignora Hernández, Albany Colmenares, and Nikoll Arteaga, as well as Henry Alviarez and Enrique Ferreira, all linked to Vente Venezuela, the party led by María Corina Machado. In the early hours of Monday, February 9, former deputy and elected governor Freddy Superlano, of Voluntad Popular, was also released.
No updated list has been published beyond Foro Penal’s report, despite announcements of further releases after Sunday night. However, by Monday morning a total of 426 political prisoners had been freed since January 8, 2026, the date when the official announcement of mass releases was made.
Guanipa: A Case That Exposes Contradictions
The particular case of Juan Pablo Guanipa — his release and subsequent detention — raised alarms among relatives and human rights organizations. Nearly 12 hours after being freed on Sunday afternoon, his son Ramón reported past midnight that Guanipa had been “kidnapped” by “a group of armed individuals.”
Upon leaving prison and before being detained again, Guanipa told international agencies that “Venezuela must move toward an electoral process.” He also joined other political, social, and student leaders in visiting detention centers to support families of prisoners still awaiting release.
Guanipa’s release order, issued on February 7, only required him to report every 30 days and prohibited him from leaving the country, without restrictions on public statements or social media. However, after his detention, the Public Prosecutor’s Office requested the revocation of these measures early on February 9, alleging noncompliance, and asked for house arrest.
Defense attorney Joel García argued in a thread on X that “there is no legal basis” for revoking Guanipa’s precautionary measures. “Speaking to the media or accompanying families does not violate any measure, since the court did not impose restrictions on expression, assembly, or public participation,” he wrote.
Juan Pablo’s brother, Tomás Guanipa, a current member of the National Assembly, described the new detention as a “tsunami” for the family. “What happened yesterday, if we want to see it in perspective toward the future, helps us understand the risks we are facing right now. The difficult situation we are going through,” he said during a public consultation on the proposed Amnesty Law.
Juan Pablo Guanipa had previously been detained on May 23, 2025, after spending several weeks in hiding, during a period when authorities intensified political persecution of opposition figures ahead of legislative and regional elections. After more than a year and a half, he briefly reunited with his family in freedom.
The party Vente Venezuela confirmed that Guanipa is currently being held at the National Bolivarian Police headquarters in Maripérez, the same facility where he had previously been detained. According to Orlando Moreno, national coordinator of the organization, the detention contradicts the version of Attorney General Tarek William Saab, who requested house arrest.
Ultimately, the Guanipa case illustrates persistent contradictions between judicial authorities and the Public Prosecutor’s Office. This phase of releases, though distinct from earlier ones for its focus on high-profile opposition figures, continues to show that beneficiaries do not enjoy full freedom. The situation remains tense, and uncertainty persists about its true scope.
