VOX Joins Begoña Gómez Influence-Traffic Case as Prosecutor

VOX Joins Prosecution Against Begoña Gómez

Does joining the prosecution make sense when case details have circulated for months? VOX announced it will act as a popular prosecutor to investigate Begoña Gómez for possible influence trafficking. The immediate reaction mirrors years of debate: some see it as the only useful move left, others as a delayed publicity stunt. The announcement comes with the People's Party (PP) absent from the board, according to the most common interpretation: neither present nor expected.

What Joining the Prosecution Implies

Popular prosecution allows a party not directly harmed to exercise incivil action and request procedures. In practice, this means requesting evidence, participating in proceedings, and pushing the process when the prosecutor or other parties do not. Some argue this route is far more effective than a parliamentary commission, where debate dilutes among hearings and bloc votes. The opposing argument also circulates: if information about Begoña Gómez’s circle has been published for months, joining now adds nothing new to the file, only headlines.

The PP, Criticized for Its Absence

The most repeated criticism targets not VOX, but the People's Party. They are reproached for not calling Begoña Gómez to testify during the Koldo case when they had the chance, emphasizing that judicial initiative always falls on the same party. The comparison with Ayuso’s brother appears as a counterweight: if the complaint against Begoña Gómez is unfounded, dismissal will come alone, just as in the other case. The lingering question is why the presumption of innocence is invoked so easily depending on whose family member is investigated.

The Cost of Going to Court Alone

There is an undisputed calculation: VOX dedicates time and resources to taking every open case against the Government and independentist parties to court. This strategy has an electoral price. In Catalonia, the party hasn't taken off, and poor results are predicted in European elections, with internal mobilization below full capacity. The paradox is evident: the more politics is judicialized, the less electoral reward seems harvested by those who judicialize it.

The Shadow of the State of Alarm and Vaccines

VOX’s judicial record is the argument defenders use when questioning the measure’s utility. The party sued the first State of Alarm and got it declared unconstitutional, and was the only one to defend that vaccines be optional. Against this, the opposing objection argues the party didn’t clearly warn of vaccine risks and acted only when seeing political gain. The discussion on what VOX did during the pandemic remains unresolved and reappears whenever the party announces legal action.

---

In the end, the case proceeds and the PP still hasn't joined. Better late than never, say some. Others have been saying exactly the same thing for two years.