The legal saga surrounding Francisco Martín Aguirre, the Government Delegate in Madrid, has taken a significant turn as the Prosecutor's Office has filed an appeal against a recent indictment related to the ongoing investigation into Begoña Gómez, the wife of Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez. This case, which has sparked intense political debate, revolves around the hiring of Cristina Álvarez, an advisor to Gómez, and allegations of embezzlement of public funds.
On May 7, 2025, Judge Juan Carlos Peinado admitted a complaint from the political party Vox, summoning Aguirre as an investigated party for alleged malfeasance. According to the indictment, Aguirre, in his previous role as Secretary General of the Presidency, is said to have played a key role in Álvarez's hiring in 2018, a time when he did not yet hold that position.
The Prosecutor's Office argues that the indictment lacks sufficient grounds and is based on erroneous assumptions. They contend that Aguirre's position as a public official should not be the sole reason for his indictment, especially since Álvarez had already been in her role for three years before Aguirre became her superior.
In the appeal, the Prosecutor's Office emphasized that the allegations against Aguirre are vague and lack specific details that would substantiate the claims of embezzlement. They described the complaint as having "very little development for a lawsuit, especially given that it involves an alleged crime of embezzlement of public funds, classified as a serious offense with significant penalties." The Prosecutor's Office also highlighted that the appointment of Álvarez was both legal and customary in Spain, where spouses of presidents typically have assistants to help manage their institutional agendas.
As the case unfolds, it has drawn attention not only for its political implications but also for the legal principles at stake. The Prosecutor's Office noted that accusing someone based on vague and imprecise facts without adequate justification is unacceptable. They questioned the decision-making process of Judge Peinado, suggesting that it lacks the necessary factual and legal support.
"The decision to indict Aguirre appears to be more about political motivations than solid legal reasoning," stated a representative from the Prosecutor's Office. They further criticized the judge for what they perceive as a lack of respect for legal guarantees and principles.
This controversy began in April 2024 when the anti-corruption group Manos Limpias filed a complaint against Gómez, alleging that she had used her position to recommend businessmen for public tenders. The investigation has since expanded, leading to multiple allegations of corruption, influence peddling, and misappropriation of public funds.
In the wake of the indictment, Aguirre expressed confidence that the process would ultimately exonerate him. Speaking to reporters, he stated, "I believe this will amount to nothing, and I stand with others who have faced similar accusations." His supporters have decried the situation as a politically motivated attack against the government.
As the case continues, it remains to be seen how the Madrid Provincial Court will respond to the Prosecutor's appeal. The court's decision could significantly impact the direction of the investigation and the political landscape surrounding the Sánchez administration.
In the meantime, the investigation remains open, and tensions between the government and opposition parties are likely to escalate as the legal proceedings unfold. The case has already led to a broader discussion about the ethical implications of political appointments and the accountability of public officials.
While the allegations against Aguirre and Gómez are serious, the Prosecutor's Office insists that many of the claims lack solid evidence. They are calling on the court to reconsider the indictment, arguing that it is based on weak and incoherent arguments.
As the political implications of this case continue to reverberate through Spain's political landscape, it raises important questions about the intersection of law and politics in the country. The outcome of this legal battle could have lasting effects on public trust in government institutions and the rule of law.
