Legal experts see possible fraud on government law by declaring Zapatero’s role in Plus Ultra secret

“The core of the response could be legal fraud because, in fact, there is a rule that covers the confidentiality of the files of strategic companies, but the government is not asked to disclose the part of the information that would apparently be protected by this rule,” said the professor of constitutional law and European doctor-researcher at the University of Bologna, Daniel Berzosa. “It seems that the government received a cover rule for violating a constitutional duty first order, that is to say that Parliament can control what happens. The Executive may declare a matter reserved when there is an overriding interest which justifies it. What is not possible is to establish a total cover-up,” he adds.

Constitutional obligation

The government’s refusal to account for Rodríguez Zapatero’s role, based on the principle of secrecy, occurred, as ABC revealed this Friday, in response to four written questions.recorded by two PP deputies in Congress. These questions were: whether the Executive had entrusted the former president with the task of mediation, whether he had participated in rescue meetings and, in this sense, where they were held and in what capacity he participated. For Carlos Vidal, professor of constitutional law at UNED, the application of subjects reserved for these questions is also not justified. “Whether or not former President Rodríguez Zapatero is linked to Plus Ultra’s efforts This is information of public interestdoes not mean breaching the obligation of confidentiality. This character would apply to data specific to the company which will benefit from the funds, but not to the people who could have intervened in the process, and even less if they are former presidents of the government”, he argues. “What the government responds is not what is requested”, he summarizes.

This last sentence is not insignificant because the Constitution and the Rules of Congress oblige the Executive to respond to questions from Parliament. And the Constitutional Court has considered in several judgments that any response is not enough, but that the government must respond effectively to what is requested. In the same sense, the professor of constitutional law at the CES Cardenal Cisneros Ibor Fernandes Romero considers that “this limitation of information to parliamentarians, whose right is integrated into the ius in oficium of article 23 of the Constitution, hardly goes beyond the judgment of proportionality”. “What is the public interest behind this reserve? It’s not very clear. Rather, it seems that there is a self-interest of a few which also coincides with the composition of the government. When the Executive limits public information, which may be relevant as is the case, there must be a real justification. Hiding the activities of a former president seems pretty bad,” he adds.

Secrets Commission

And even in the case of matters legitimately classified under the Official Secrets Act, the government must report to Congress. For this purpose, there is the Commission for Control of Reserved Expenditures, headed by the President of Congress, Francina Armengol, and to which only the spokespersons of each of the parliamentary groups belong. The meetings of this commission are held on a confidential basis and its members cannot reveal the information. that you provided to the government but having access to it allows them to control you. The Executive has not given this option or any other similar one in 2022; what CEU constitutional law professor Rafael Murillo calls a deficit. “The procedures are reserved and not secret, which is why I believe that it could be possible, if the Congressional Council accepts it, that, in committee and behind closed doors, the government reports and answers these questions posed by the opposition. The problem is that the importance for public opinion would be very limited since the press would not be able to attend,” he believes.

Berzosa addresses this visible lack of transparency “Is this a subject reserved for these purposes? indicate the people who were able to participate in the negotiation and, above all, when they have no link with the Government and are not civil servants either? “Can the Executive invite a third party to participate in a negotiation? By virtue of what? How was this mission carried out?” asks this lawyer. “From a constitutional point of view, this could constitute fraud because Magna Carta entrusts Parliament with the function of oversight of government. “If the government dictates regulations to prevent minimal control, the result is a lack of control.”

New set of questions

Meanwhile, the Popular Party returned to the battle this Friday and registered a new battery of questions in Congress related to the role played by Rodríguez Zapatero in the rescue of Plus Ultra and the meeting he had with the former Minister of Transport, José Luis Ábalos, when he was still in government. In this sense, the popular deputy Pedro Muñoz Abrines asks the Executive to clarify on what date this appointment took place, confirmed by Ábalos himself, if the government is going to submit the first report of the technicians of this department and that it was against the rescue, when the two conversations took place between Ábalos and President Pedro Sánchez on the operation or if the latter ordered or made indications about the aid, among other issues.

Additionally, the most popular ones emphasize the latest information from the alleged corrupt conspiracy commissioner Víctor de Aldama regarding a 10 million commission that Rodríguez Zapatero allegedly pocketed after the rescue. “Has the Spanish government carried out any checks regarding the alleged collection of 10 million euros of the funds granted for the rescue by José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero in an account in Panama or did they end up as a contribution to the Socialist International?” asks the PP.

At the same time, Muñoz Abrines registered in the Chamber the request for this first technical report from the Ministry of Transport which could have been negative for the rescue of Plus Ultra. Government responses will not come quickly, as Congress enters a non-working period from January 1 until the second week of February. By then, it is possible that the investigation has provided new data on the role played by Rodríguez Zapatero in the rescue of Plus Ultra, despite the government’s obvious efforts to cover it up.