Demanding the payment of benefits, requesting resources for the pension fund, and participating in demonstrations against the administration of Governor Miguel Ángel Navarro Quintero led a group of government workers in Nayarit before a criminal judge.
A protest, protected under the right to freedom of expression and peaceful demonstration, resulted in an investigation file for the alleged crimes of attacks on communication routes, coalition of public servants, and apology of a crime. This has caused salary reductions, removal from their positions, and, above all, being stigmatized as criminals.
In an interview with Excélsior in Tepic, workers affiliated with the Single Union of Workers Serving the State and Municipalities (SUTSEM) accused the State Attorney General’s Office of being used to dismantle demonstrations, intimidate those who participated in them, and isolate union representatives from their colleagues.
Among those facing legal proceedings is Luz Adriana Rodríguez Rodríguez, a worker at the State Attorney General’s Office and union representative within the institution.
“(For me, it was only because I) attended the press conference and supported my union during the demonstrations. I believe I would have been wrong not to support it, because that is why my colleagues elected me, to represent them,” she stated. She has 23 years of service and no administrative records.
Workers accused of encouraging protests
The Attorney General’s Office interpreted that her statements could influence other workers to participate in demonstrations or blockades, a conduct that was included in the accusation of apology of a crime.
The legal process began to take shape before the workers were summoned before a judge. On October 17, 2025, then Deputy Prosecutor Ludmila Heredia announced that the Attorney General’s Office had identified several participants in the protests and that they would be called to appear.
She also stated that the institution could request their suspension from work and affect their salaries, arguing that, because they were public servants, their participation in demonstrations could constitute various crimes.
At the end of that same month, the workers began receiving summons.
The defense gained access to the investigation file on the same day as the hearing, while the lawyer reportedly had approximately two hours to review a large case file before appearing before the judge.
A large part of the evidence was obtained from the union’s social media accounts. Photographs, livestreams, videos, and Facebook posts were used to identify employees who participated in conferences, sit-ins, and demonstrations.
The workers stated that the investigation file did not contain documents proving the planning of violent acts. They also stated that no evidence of damage to public property or attacks against individuals was presented.
The images confirmed their presence at union activities. However, according to the Attorney General’s Office, they also allowed authorities to argue the possible commission of crimes.
First accusation: attacks against communication routes
The first charge was related to attacks against communication routes. The Attorney General’s Office connected this accusation with the temporary occupation of streets and intersections during some demonstrations organized to demand the payment of benefits.
Article 198 of the Criminal Code of Nayarit establishes penalties for anyone who destroys, damages, or obstructs communication routes or public transportation systems that do not belong to federal jurisdiction. The established punishment ranges from five days to two years in prison.
This situation conflicts with the right to freedom of demonstration protected by Articles 6 and 7 of the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States, as well as Article 9, which protects the right to assembly.
The public servants were informed that they would be placed under the authority of the state government because their services were no longer required within the Attorney General’s Office.
The legal process has had direct consequences for employees with more than two and three decades of service.
Source: excelsior
