While immersed in another criminal investigation for corruption offenses and facing a new trial for perjury and false accusation in the case of the Tourist Centers, the former president of the Cabildo, Pedro San Ginés, has made public that the case of the Montaña Roja desalination plant is also still open. "My acquittal is not yet final, because Carlos Meca and company have appealed it to avoid paying the court costs and keep me charged," he says in a statement.
In that appeal, presented to the Provincial Court, the popular accusation demands that the sentence on costs be revoked and also that the Court enter into the merits of the matter or, failing that, force the judge who issued the acquittal to do so, who did not assess the evidence.
"After the eight years that have passed since the investigation began, and when I thought that the ordeal I had to go through was over, after the enormous media attention that this case aroused due to my status as former president of the Cabildo of Lanzarote, I have considered it appropriate to inform public opinion that the sentence is not yet final and is pending the resolution of the Provincial Court on the appeal filed," says San Ginés to explain why he has decided to report it.
In his statement, he recalls that the sentence was handed down three months ago by the Criminal Court Number 3 of Arrecife. In that ruling, the judge concluded that the popular accusation - exercised by former councilors of Podemos in the Cabildo - was not duly constituted, so she issued an acquittal, stating that she did so without "entering into the merits of the matter."
Specifically, she upheld the allegation of San Ginés' defense, concluding that the former councilors did not appear in the case as individuals, but as a political group in the Cabildo, so they could not continue in the procedure in a personal capacity. In this regard, the lawyer of Carlos Meca and Pablo Ramírez emphasizes in her appeal that this argument was rejected at the time by both the investigating judge and the Public Prosecutor's Office, which did not formulate an accusation but did support the case going to trial with the popular accusation. In addition, different sections of the Provincial Court also rejected previous appeals by San Ginés and the other two defendants to prevent the hearing from being held.
Therefore, the lawyer considers it "irrational" and "incongruent" to impose on her clients the payment of costs for "recklessness and procedural bad faith", when their action had been supported by other magistrates and by the Prosecutor's Office, which reiterated that the appearance was always as individuals, because otherwise it would not have been possible, since a political group of an institution does not have legal standing to act outside of it.
"They are right about that, Judge Jerónimo Alonso opened an oral trial against me with a written accusation from two individuals not formally appearing as such," says San Ginés, who takes advantage of a good part of his statement to question the work of the investigating magistrate, in aspects in which he had the support of the Prosecutor's Office and the Provincial Court.
"Carlos Meca asks in his appeal 'if the judge is arguing that the Public Prosecutor's Office, which requested the acquittal before and during the trial, also acted in bad faith or recklessness', because it validated the legitimacy of the accusation, but not the criminal content of it," adds the former president, who questions that they "dare" to say that "following the logic of the judge a quo", also "the Public Prosecutor's Office should be condemned in costs".
The lawyer of Carlos Meca and Pablo Ramírez also emphasizes the role of Club Lanzarote, which was the one who denounced this case and exercised the private prosecution, until it withdrew from the procedure after reaching an agreement with San Ginés, being still president. Just before, Club Lanzarote had requested that the case be passed to abbreviated procedure, which is the previous step to the opening of oral trial. "It should also be condemned to pay a part of the costs of the process," the writing points out.
In his statement, San Ginés also underlines several adjectives that are used in that appeal and that qualify the ruling as "absurd", "irrational", "incongruent", "ridiculous" and "authentic legal nonsense".
