Seventeen minutes. That is the time that the lawyer for the private prosecution spent launching a barrage of questions at the former president of the Cabildo, Pedro San Ginés, who meanwhile listened in silence, invoking the right not to testify that the accused have. In the case of the prosecutor, whom San Ginés had told in advance that he was not going to answer either, she chose to question only the other two defendants, but the lawyer for the prosecution asked to record all the questions she wanted to ask San Ginés, and which remained unanswered.
“Did representatives of Club Lanzarote warn you that the seizure was illegal and that you needed a court order to carry it out?” “If you maintain that a report was not necessary, why did you incorporate one prepared by an external lawyer eleven days after the seizure?” “How much public money was paid for that report?” “Was there a contracting procedure?” “Did you know that Ignacio Calatayud - who signed that report drafted 'a posteriori' - worked for Canal Gestión?” “Don't you think you should have refrained from seeking advice from a person who works for another company - to whom the seized plants were handed over - and who is also a friend of yours?”. These and many other questions are what San Ginés has refused to answer, who has also not clarified whether Canal paid any additional fee to the Water Consortium while it was operating those plants that were not his, until the Justice ordered them to be returned to Club Lanzarote.
And he has also not explained “what the verbal advice” he claims to have received before the seizure from the secretary and Calatayud himself consisted of. Regarding Calatayud, who was also charged in the case, he will testify next week as a witness. As for the secretary, Francisco Perdomo, in his statement has denied San Ginés and has assured that he only had an “informal” conversation with the president about this issue and that the advice he gave him was “generic” and “improvised”, without knowing the subject because he had not even seen the file or studied it.
In addition, within the waterfall of unanswered questions, San Ginés has also not explained why in 2012 the request for an extension of the authorization that Club Lanzarote had for the operation of that plant was not answered, and yet in 2017 this right was recognized, in the agreement that San Ginés personally negotiated with the company, for which he ended up getting them to withdraw as an accusation from this case and from all the contentious proceedings that remained open. And he has also not explained why he did not expressly deny that extension in 2012 if he considered that the conditions were being breached, nor why he did not initiate during that time any other type of measure or undertake other avenues before reaching “such a serious measure as the seizure”.
"You haven't asked me that question but..."
The former president only began to speak when it was the turn of his own lawyer's questions, and there he even answered questions that he had not asked him. “You haven't asked me that question but I think it's important,” he said at one point to his lawyer, directing his own interrogation. “Something you haven't asked me,” he added at another point to introduce another topic. “A question that the lawyer asked me and that my lawyer hasn't asked me,” he repeated at the end of his statement, in this case to talk about how the water was awarded to Canal de Isabel II, insisting that it was the most economically advantageous offer, although the Justice ordered to review that award considering it proven that the specifications were substantially altered for the benefit of the Madrid company. At that moment, it was his lawyer who interrupted him, ending his statement.
Meanwhile, even some questions from his own lawyer also remained unanswered. One of them was one of the enigmas that also remained after the first statements during the investigation of this case, when no one took responsibility for having drafted the resolution that San Ginés signed. That has been one of the long list of unanswered questions that the prosecution has formulated again this Monday, and the lawyer of the former president has taken up the issue again when his turn came.
“You have an administrative staff, right? An office with several officials. What does it consist of? What is that resolution that has to be issued like?”, he asked, which again generated a brief silence. “Mr. Lawyer, all presidents have an administrative staff that prepares the resolutions,” San Ginés then limited himself to answering.
“But who transfers them? The secretary, the external advisor, among all...? Someone has to write it,” the lawyer insisted, again without obtaining an answer from his own client, whom he has represented since last January, when he began to share his defense with the first lawyer San Ginés hired for this case. “I had a meeting with both some and others. And in view of the possibilities, both legal, I opted for the seizure, and gave instructions that it be chosen,” the former president replied, who again did not clarify who drafted that resolution.
In the case of the secretary, in his statement he assured that he did not even know that the seizure had been carried out and that he found out “through the press and some colleagues” who told him. And regarding who was the manager of the Insular Water Council, José Juan Hernández Duchemín, who is the third defendant in the case, has stated that San Ginés did not consult him either before or after ordering this measure, and that he did not intervene.
"He knew what he was signing"
What the former president has recognized is that “he knew what he was signing” when he signed that resolution, and also that he was aware that it was a decision of “extraordinary importance” and of “extraordinary complexity”. However, he adopted it without having a single legal report in writing. And according to the secretary, also without the “verbal advice” that San Ginés has been claiming for years that he had. Or at least, not from any official of the Corporation.
During his statement, the former president has dedicated most of the time to insisting that he acted on the “requirements” that he claims to have received from both the Deputy of the Common and the Government of the Canary Islands. However, the question that the private prosecution had formulated in this regard has remained in the air. “Did the Deputy of the Common ask you to seize the desalination plant? Did the Ministry ask you to seize the treatment plant and the desalination plant?”, the lawyer had asked without getting an answer. And he has also not answered whether there had been “shortages in Montaña Roja”, since San Ginés also assures that he intervened to guarantee the water supply to the residents.
Already at the questions of his lawyer, San Ginés has recalled that he came to the presidency in 2009 and has assured that “it was not until 2010, as a result of a report”, when he had “personal knowledge that water was being sold to third parties” in that Partial Plan. Then, he has recognized that this had been happening since 1986, as stated in other documents of the Yaiza City Council provided to the case. And the reason is that the plan was still not received by the administration, so the responsibility of providing the services, including the water supply, fell on the promoters. Thus, the discrepancy was in how that service should be invoiced and whether Club Lanzarote could do it - as it had been doing for almost three decades - and with what rates.
In that context, the warnings of the Deputy of the Common were received, who according to San Ginés came to warn him with “putting it to the attention of the Public Prosecutor if he did not act”. When asked about the inaction against other private desalination plants on the island, to which the prosecution has also alluded, the former president has recognized that “there are many that do not have authorization or that it is expired”, and at the questions of his lawyer he has defended that no action was taken against any more because none “sold water to third parties for domestic supply”. Regarding why no action was taken against other treatment plants either, such as the one in Costa Papagayo of Juan Francisco Rosa, where the prosecution has recalled that there were even complaints about polluting discharges and possible crimes against public health, he has also not given an answer.
Regarding the options he considered in Montaña Roja, he has assured that the people who supposedly advised him indicated that he could order the closure of the plant or the seizure, and that he opted for the second to maintain the water supply to the residents. However, he has also recognized that the secretary had informed him three years before that neither the Cabildo nor the Council had the power to close a plant. In this regard, however, he has insisted that in 2014 the same secretary told him “verbally” that he could order both the seizure and the closure as a precautionary measure. “Is it not true that the competence is of the Government of the Canary Islands? Did you previously address the Government of the Canary Islands?”, the lawyer of the prosecution had also asked without success.
Regarding his friendship with Ignacio Calatayud, for which his lawyer has asked him taking up what the prosecution had previously raised, San Ginés has assured that the personal relationship they maintained “absolutely” did not influence his decisions. “With Ignacio Calatayud, it is true that my relationship is born from a professional point of view. Every time he has advised me it has been for his knowledge in the matter that was the object of the contract. But when one has a long professional relationship, one ends up having a certain degree of friendship,” he has said, reiterating that “it has nothing to do” with the role that Calatayud played in the seizure, despite the fact that he advised San Ginés while working for the company to which he later handed over the management of the plants.
“It was the only one that had the enabling title to do so,” San Ginés has defended, explaining why they left the plants of Club Lanzarote in the hands of Canal Gestión, which was the one who started billing the water to the residents and keeping those revenues, until the Justice annulled the seizure for considering it “serious” and “disproportionate”.
Regarding whether during his ten years in the presidency he had adopted any similar precautionary measure in any other file, which has been another of the questions of the prosecution, San Ginés has also not answered. Nor “how many desalination plants have seen their activity suspended” or “how many desalination plants have been seized in the history of the Consortium”. He has not even explained why he did not inform any collegiate body of the Insular Water Council that he was going to adopt this measure, despite the fact that he himself recognized that it was “a controversial issue” and “of extraordinary importance”.
Three defendants, different strategies
The other two defendants have answered the questions of the Public Prosecutor, although they have also refused to answer the private prosecution, so during their interrogations there have also been a few minutes of 'monologue' of the lawyer of the prosecution, formulating unanswered questions. However, in this case the magistrate has asked her not to exceed five minutes and the lawyer has already advanced that she was going to be briefer.
In their answers both to the Prosecutor's Office and to their lawyers, both the former secretary and who was the manager of the Insular Water Council, José Juan Hernández Duchemín, have focused on disclaiming any responsibility for this decision adopted by the president. “Did they ask you for advice before or after?”, the prosecutor has asked Duchemín. “Nothing, nobody”, he has answered.
About his intervention, he has defended that he limited himself to intervening later, once the resolution of San Ginés was issued, putting the plants at the disposal of Canal Gestión “to guarantee the service to the residents, because that company was the one that could take charge of the service”.
In addition to that intervention, Duchemín also made a previous report, on which San Ginés based himself to open the sanctioning file to Club Lanzarote. However, that report did not raise at any time the seizure as a precautionary measure - which was what San Ginés ordered -, and only proposed a possible sanction of 7,800 euros for three minor offenses and one less serious.
In addition, both the former manager of the Council and Francisco Perdomo have referred to the requirements they had received from other bodies and to the “complaints of the residents”, although both have denied having taken part in the decision to seize the plants.
The first six witnesses
After the statement of the three defendants, the first day of the trial has concluded with the first witnesses. In total, six agents of the Local Police of Yaiza and of the Civil Guard have testified, who were present during the material execution of the seizure.
Their testimony had been requested by the private prosecution, which is the only one that has formulated questions to them. As for the agents of the Local Police, they have indicated that they went following indications of the then mayoress, Gladys Acuña, so that they would “assist, in case there was any altercation”.
As for the agents of the Civil Guard, they have explained that they went as a result of a complaint that the one who was the manager of the Consortium, Domingo Pérez, presented that same morning, because Club refused to hand over the plants. In their statement, almost all the agents have confirmed that they saw there the representative of Club Lanzarote, Joaquín Cañada, warning that “without judicial authorization they could not pass”. And they also saw how the delegation sent by San Ginés broke the padlock to open the access gate to the facilities, where in addition to the plants there were offices and different material of the company.
“Mr. Cañada was very surprised by the situation. He was indignant. He said how could that be,” one of the agents of the Civil Guard has explained, clarifying that at that moment they could not “discuss the administrative act”, which Cañada stated then that it was “illegal”. “They took, broke the padlock and entered,” he has recalled, explaining that they were only present in case there was any “alteration of the order”, but they did not intervene.
In addition, the three agents have responded in the same way to the same question that the lawyer of the prosecution has formulated to them. They had never attended the seizure of a desalination plant and they had never intervened in a seizure of a private home or a commercial premises without judicial authorization and without the consent of its owner. “Without judicial authorization and without authorization of the owner, never,” one of them has underlined.
