Sánchez’s Immunity: The Wall Blocking Criminal Charges

Sánchez’s immunity: why no one ends up in prison

The question circulates insistently: how many years of jail time will Pedro Sánchez get when his immunity lapses? The most repeated answer in public debate is not a number, but zero. Not due to a lack of cases, but because immunity acts as a procedural firewall preventing any investigation from advancing while the subject remains in Government. Once out of office, the calculation changes: most Spanish ex-presidents have never been jailed.

Immunity is a legal figure granting procedural immunity to Government members and MPs. To investigate a Prime Minister, the Supreme Court needs a referral from Congress. That permission, in practice, is rarely granted when the investigated party’s party controls the Chamber. The result is clear: as long as Sánchez is president, no incivil case against him can proceed. The judicial clock does not tick.

What happens when a president loses immunity

Recent history offers few precedents. Felipe González narrowly escaped the GAL cases, and José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero was never formally indicted for 11-M. None of the democratic ex-presidents have been imprisoned. This fact, repeated in debate, dismantles expectations of a landmark conviction.

Some argue Sánchez could face up to 24 years for embezzlement, illegal financing, bribery, and influence peddling. This is speculation without firm judicial backing. The charges are not formalized, and immunity prevents them from being. Any figure launched today is speculation.

Flight as the most likely scenario

The scenario gaining weight is not jail, but flight. The comparison with Carles Puigdemont is recurrent: an investigated subject who leaves the country before justice acts. If Sánchez loses immunity and faces real indictment, the hypothesis that he will not return to Spain gains ground. The Dominican Republic appears as a possible destination, though there is no confirmation of any movement in that sense.

Structural impunity is the central argument. It is not just about Sánchez: it is about a system protecting ex-presidents to avoid setting precedents. If one falls, all could fall. This logic, repeated in various analyses, explains why no ex-president has been jailed in democracy.

Rule of Law as an empty mantra

The expression “Rule of Law” has become a wildcard. Strictly speaking, it means only that a legal order exists. By that criterion, any authoritarian regime could claim the term. The relevant question is not whether laws exist, but whether they apply equally to everyone. The dominant perception is that they do not.

Judicial selectivity is the core of skepticism. It is pointed out that justice acts quickly against some and slowly against others. Judges and the Civil Guard, professions heavily criticized by the Government, would be responsible for investigating Sánchez if he loses immunity. That institutional tension adds uncertainty to the outcome.

The electoral clock and the State of Alarm

There is a hypothesis gaining ground: that Sánchez will not call elections in 2027. The argument is that a State of Alarm would allow maintaining control and avoiding dissolving Parliament. The situation in Ceuta, according to this reading, could lead to an exceptional scenario freezing the electoral calendar. It is unconfirmed speculation, but it circulates strongly.

Meanwhile, the question remains unanswered. No one knows how many years Sánchez will get because no one knows if he will ever be tried. Immunity, control of Congress, and the lack of precedents turn any forecast into a guessing exercise. The only certainty is that, today, jail is not on the horizon.