The former president of the Cabildo, Pedro San Ginés, has made a last-ditch attempt to avoid the trial he will face from November 16 and has filed a new brief with the Criminal Court Number 3 of Arrecife, which is the one that will hold the hearing for the seizure of the Montaña Roja desalination plant. In that brief, the defense of San Ginés -which had already exhausted all possible ordinary remedies and had also unsuccessfully undertaken other avenues such as incidents of nullity and even appeals to the Constitutional Court- now appeals to the pandemic to prevent his client from sitting on the bench.
Specifically, he requests that, in view of the health crisis and "with the known mobility restrictions that could be increased", the preliminary issues that are always raised at the beginning of the trial be resolved in this case beforehand, since he argues that the intervention of the parties is "not essential" to initiate this procedure.
In these preliminary issues, most of the defenses in corruption cases invoke alleged grounds for annulment to prevent the hearing from continuing, and that is precisely what Pedro San Ginés' defense is trying to do in advance, in a last attempt to prevent the trial from taking place. In addition, another of the accused, the former secretary of the Cabildo, Francisco Perdomo, has also joined his brief. In the case of Perdomo, he asks that the preliminary issues be resolved before the hearing, annulling the order to open the trial and decreeing the dismissal of the proceedings. For his part, San Ginés goes even further and demands that "an acquittal be issued without the need to continue with the trial".
In both briefs, the accused do not raise arguments of defense against the crimes of prevarication for which they are being prosecuted. What they do is cling to formal issues that they believe could lead to the annulment of the trial, linked to the appearance of the popular accusation. However, these same arguments have already been raised in other appeals that were rejected by both the Investigating Court and the Prosecutor's Office, which finally did not formulate an accusation in this case, but has continued to intervene in the process and defending that it goes to trial with the popular accusation.
An argument and the opposite to try to delegitimize the accusation
As a first cause of alleged nullity, San Ginés insists that who was appearing as a popular accusation in the case was the Podemos Group in the Cabildo, but not the councilors as natural persons. Thus, given that the indictment was formulated in the name of the former councilors Carlos Meca and Pablo Ramírez, he argues that it is not valid because they were not appearing and that the Podemos Group -of which he emphasizes that they are no longer part and that it does not even "exist"- "has not filed an accusation".
However, this has already been refuted by both the Prosecutor's Office and the Investigating Court, when the accused used this same argument to try to annul the order that ordered the opening of the oral trial. In another order issued more than a year ago, the magistrate replied that Meca and Ramírez appeared from the first moment "as natural persons", as stated in all the proceedings, "without prejudice to their status, as stated in their writings, as representatives of the Podemos political group in the Island Council of Lanzarote", to which they belonged at that time.
Next, as a second reason for alleged nullity, San Ginés' own defense goes on to cling to just the opposite, pointing out that a political group of an institution is not legitimized to appear in a case. Thus, on the one hand, he asks for the annulment alleging that who was appearing was the political group and not the councilors as natural persons -and that therefore there is no accusation-, and on the other he argues that a political group could never have appeared in the case and that there is a cause of nullity for having allowed it by the judge.
"It is evident and obvious that the Court of Instruction violated the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law," adds the defense of Francisco Perdomo, who at the time did not allege anything when this appearance was admitted more than five years ago. It was after the last elections, after the previous Corporation was dissolved in the Cabildo, when he raised this argument for the first time asking for the nullity of the case.
Then, the magistrate already replied that the Podemos Group in the Cabildo was never present as such -because in fact it cannot be, as the Courts reminded the CC group in the Cabildo in another case in which it tried to appear without success- and that the appearance that was admitted was that of the then councilors of Podemos as natural persons, regardless of the fact that at that time they stated that they belonged to a political group.
And the same was answered by the Public Prosecutor's Office, which also questioned that they raised at that time a "supposed defect of appearance on which nothing had been manifested during the instruction and intermediate phase of the procedure", when the order accepting the appearance was issued in 2015 and was not appealed by any of the parties. In addition, like the magistrate, he pointed out that in that order Carlos Meca and Pablo Ramírez already appeared as natural persons; and he added that the defenses did not allege anything either when the indictment was filed more than two years ago in the name of these two persons.
The third alleged nullity has already been rejected up to three times
In the case of San Ginés, he did file an appeal against the admission of that indictment, but then he did not question anything about who had filed it. What he tried is to have it annulled alleging that it had been issued out of time, but his appeal was also rejected first by the investigating judge and then, up to two times, by the Provincial Court.
"The present incident of nullity should not have been admitted, since it lacks a minimum foundation, the party intending that the Chamber return to rule on the merits of the matter, since it does not even indicate what is the reason for the nullity requested", the last order of the Second Section of the Court responded to San Ginés.
Now, he returns to use this same argument and raises it as a third cause of alleged nullity, within those preliminary issues that he intends to be resolved before the trial is held. In this regard, he insists that the indictment was filed a year after the judge put an end to the investigation -in July 2017- and gave them a transfer to formulate an accusation. However, the truth is that this period does not begin to count until the order becomes final, once the possible appeals against it are resolved.
In this case, in addition to resolving the different appeals of the accused, during that time there were also other changes in the case, including the change of position of the Prosecutor's Office, after the now convicted judge Salvador Alba agreed to disimpute the lawyer Ignacio Calatayud, who had been identified as the "ideologist" of the seizure. In addition, in that year the private prosecution also withdrew from the case, after San Ginés personally negotiated, and on behalf of the Cabildo and the Water Council, an agreement with the complaining company and owner of the seized plants, Club Lanzarote.
The withdrawal of the company as an accusation against him, which he achieved after negotiating that agreement on behalf of the institution, has also been used repeatedly by San Ginés to try to avoid this trial, and again he has done so now also with this last brief addressed to the Criminal Court, which must now decide whether to accept or not to resolve the preliminary issues before starting the hearing.
A trial that had already been postponed three times
The trial for the seizure of the Montaña Roja desalination plant was to have been held at the beginning of last March, but it has already changed dates up to three times and this was the fourth time it was set. First at the request of one of the accused, the former manager of the Insular Water Council, José Juan Hernández Duchemín, who in those same days was facing the trial of the Stratvs case. Afterwards, due to the pandemic, as it was to be held at the beginning of June and coincided with the state of alarm.
However, it has been now, when the new established date is approaching, when the defense of San Ginés has undertaken this new attempt, appealing for it to the health situation, pointing out that it intends to "facilitate, from procedural loyalty, the most agile processing of the present actions". And in this way he demands that an acquittal be issued without even holding the trial, asking that the popular accusation be delegitimized, which he has been trying to expel unsuccessfully from this procedure for years.
Like the other two defendants, San Ginés faces in this trial a request for 12 years of disqualification for crimes of prevarication, for having illegally seized a desalination plant from a private company to hand it over to Canal Gestión, without any written report to support this measure, which is not even foreseen in the legislation. "The seizure was carried out because it was the only way to respond to the whim of Mr. San Ginés and his desire to benefit Canal Gestión Lanzarote above respect for current legislation and private property", the prosecution argues in its brief, in which it recalls that Canal obtained "huge profits" after the president handed over these plants and until the Justice forced him to return the facilities to Club Lanzarote.
The hearing, if there are no new changes or this new attempt by the accused prospers, is scheduled to begin on November 16 and will extend for four days, including also the days 17, 23 and 24 of November.
