The trial concerning the “Koldo case” has reached a critical juncture in the Spanish Supreme Court, with latest testimony suggesting that the procurement of pandemic-era medical supplies was driven by an ultimatum rather than public health needs. Manuel Jesús Gómez, a former high-ranking official at the Ministry of Transport, testified that Koldo García—then a key advisor to the minister—pressured him to double a mask order for a specific company, stating, “The company says eight million or nothing.”
This revelation centers on the alleged criminal association between former Minister José Luis Ábalos, his advisor Koldo García, and businessman Víctor de Aldama. The proceedings are examining whether public contracts were manipulated to benefit Soluciones de Gestión, a firm linked to Aldama, during the height of the COVID-19 crisis in March 2020. The testimony provides a rare glimpse into the rapid, often opaque, decision-making process that occurred while Spain was under a state of emergency.
The timing of the events described is precise. On March 19, 2020, as infection rates climbed and hospitals faced critical shortages, the Ministry of Transport sought to protect essential workers. Within 24 hours, an order was drafted for a massive purchase of masks. However, the evidence presented in court suggests that before the ink was dry, the selection of the supplier had already been steered toward Aldama’s company via Koldo García.
The 38-Minute Shift: From Four Million to Eight
The most striking detail of Gómez’s testimony involves the sudden escalation of the order size. According to court records, Minister Ábalos signed an initial order at 7:55 p.m. For the acquisition of four million masks. Just 38 minutes later, at 8:33 p.m., that document was annulled and replaced by a new order—identical in every way except for the quantity, which had been doubled to eight million.
When questioned by Alejandro Luzón, the head of the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office, Gómez explained that his team had estimated a need for four million masks to cover 15 days, or eight million for a full month. While Gómez had initially opted for the more prudent four-million-unit order, he testified that Koldo García informed him the final decision was eight million. Gómez stated that he understood this instruction to be the “will of the minister.”
The financial scale of these contracts was significant. One agreement, signed via Puertos del Estado on March 21, 2020, totaled 24.2 million euros. A second contract, signed six days later through Adif, amounted to 12.5 million euros. Both were awarded under the relaxed procurement rules allowed by the state of emergency, which permitted direct awards without the usual competitive bidding processes.
The Chain of Influence at Adif
The trial also scrutinized the role of Adif, the state-owned railway infrastructure manager. Michaux Miranda, a former personnel director at Adif, testified that the recommendation to use Soluciones de Gestión came from multiple high-level sources. He identified Isabel Pardo de Vera, then-president of Adif, and Álvaro Sánchez Manzanares, the then-secretary general of Puertos del Estado, as the individuals who provided the company’s contact information.
Miranda denied receiving commissions or facing direct pressure to select Aldama’s firm, claiming he viewed the company as solvent. He acknowledged that an internal report had flagged the company as having a “high” risk of default, but argued that the contract mitigated this risk due to the fact that payments were only made upon the physical receipt of the materials.
| Entity | Date Signed | Amount | Quantity/Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Puertos del Estado | March 21, 2020 | €24.2 Million | 8 Million Masks |
| Adif | March 27, 2020 | €12.5 Million | 5 Million Masks |
Strategic Defenses and the “Supervening Accuser”
The defense strategies for Ábalos and García have focused on shifting responsibility and undermining the credibility of Víctor de Aldama. In a move that caused visible frustration for the prosecution, the defense called the current president of Adif, Pedro Luis Marco de la Peña, and his chief of staff, Rosa Montero, to testify. Neither had a direct role in the 2020 contracts.
The objective of their testimony was to validate a 2024 Adif report that found no irregularities in other works allegedly pre-awarded by the former minister. By doing so, the defense aimed to paint Aldama as an “acusador sobrevenido” (a supervening accuser)—someone whose testimony is unreliable because he is attempting to trade information for a reduced sentence. While Ábalos faces a potential 30-year sentence, the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor is seeking only seven years for Aldama, reflecting the latter’s cooperation with the court.
This tension highlights the central conflict of the trial: whether the procurement process was a genuine emergency response or a coordinated effort to extract profit from a global crisis. Manuel Jesús Gómez, who is also under investigation by the Audiencia Nacional, chose to testify in full to distance himself from the decision to hire Aldama’s firm, asserting that he merely provided the regulatory framework and that the final choice of supplier lay with the executing agencies.
Disclaimer: This report is based on judicial testimonies and court proceedings. All defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty by a final court ruling.
The court is expected to continue hearing witnesses as it delves deeper into the financial trails and communications between the Ministry of Transport and Soluciones de Gestión. The next phase of the trial will focus on further corroborating the flow of funds and the specific nature of the “commissions” alleged by the prosecution.
We invite readers to share their thoughts on the implications of emergency procurement laws in the comments below.
