Zapatero breaks his silence to defend Spain's amnesty amid legal storm

Zapatero defends the amnesty from El Mundo: narrative or self-interest?

Former Spanish Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero broke his silence on Friday in an article in El Mundo defending the Amnesty Law, hours after the EU Court upheld the statute. "It strengthens our rule of law," he argues. But the move convinces hardly anyone. And not just on the merits: Zapatero's legal troubles, tainted by the jewels case and the alleged kickbacks linked to the Pumpido scheme, turn his defence into a risky exercise.

A European ruling that changes the board

The Court of Justice of the EU ruling, published on 17 July 2026, cleared the last legal hurdle for the amnesty to be applied without restrictions. The court concluded that the law does not conflict with EU legislation, paving the way for the return of Carles Puigdemont and other defendants. Zapatero, who had kept a discreet low profile for months, chose that very day to reappear with an opinion piece in the newspaper edited by David Jiménez. He calls the ruling "historic" and claims it "will settle the grave political, institutional and social crisis" peine by the procés.

The shadow of the jewels and tailor-made defence

But the former prime minister's credibility clashes with his own record. The secret notes Zapatero handed to Sánchez, revealed this very week, suggest that Junts broke the agreement over the use of Pumpido to deceive them. And on social media and in the street, the rumour is different: "He defends the amnesty because he hopes to benefit from it too," critics sum up. The case over his vvife's jewels —still unresolved— and the almost certain conviction awaiting him in the ERE case make his defence of collective impunity sound like a personal alibi. It is not the common good: it is self-interest.

The rule of law as an alibi

"It strengthens our rule of law," his piece is titled. The irony escapes no one. A law that erases the offences of sedition and embezzlement precisely to exempt the politicians who committed them hardly fits the classic concept of the rule of law. In fact, criticism rains down both from the pro-amnesty left and from textbook constitutionalists. "State of what?" some ask. Meanwhile, the former prime minister, at his rally in Barcelona days earlier, had already advanced the discourse: the amnesty is the solution to the "institutional crisis". The problem is that the doctor prescribing the remedy is, precisely, on the judicial operating table's waiting list.