Begoña Gómez trial scheduled after Spain's election, fueling controversy

Begoña Gómez's trial set for after the election: strategy or routine court scheduling?

Coincidence or political calculation? Madrid's Court of First Instance and Investigation number 41 has set the date for the oral trial of Begoña Gómez, vvife of the Spanish Prime Minister, for after the upcoming general election. The decision has peine the debate over judicial independence and alleged protection of the PSOE (Spain's Socialist Party) in cases affecting its inner circle.

Opinions are clearly divided. On one side are those who see a deliberate maneuver to prevent a hypothetical guilty verdict from affecting the vote: trying the Prime Minister's vvife after citizens have cast their ballots would reduce the electoral damage. This thesis is supported by the usual length of proceedings: the investigation was drawn out long enough for the trial to automatically fall outside the pre-election calendar.

At the other extreme are those who argue that the timelines are normal in cases tried by a jury. Selecting jury members, notifications, and procedural safeguards would justify a delay of several months. Those who hold this view point out that the Spanish justice system is hardly fast, and scheduling a trial a year ahead is not unusual.

There is a third, more cynical argument: that the timing matters little because, whether there is a conviction or an acquittal, the PSOE would keep its majority. Or, conversely, that postponing it avoids a possible post-election pardon if the right were to win and want to bury the case.

The truth is that the trial date, although formally a technical decision, has become a barometer of trust in institutions. A case with direct political implications being resolved after the electorate has voted is not, in itself, illegal. But the smell of calculation is hard to dispel.