On January 15, the Provincial Court of Santa Cruz de Tenerife will hear the case of the former councillor of the Santa Cruz de Tenerife Festival, Andrés Martín (PSOE), for whom the Prosecutor’s Office seeks a disqualification period of 12 years. He is alleged to have committed a crime of prevarication concerning contracts for the organisation of the 2020 Carnival, totalling 227,000 euros.
The Public Ministry asserts that this amount significantly exceeds the maximum threshold for minor contracts, which the councillor allegedly exploited “in a wholly conscious and deliberate manner, prioritising political interests over adherence to the law and the general interest that the legislation aims to protect,” according to the Prosecutor’s Office.
A total of 21 grants are under scrutiny, including those related to infrastructure for the carnival’s opening, seating arrangements, lighting towers, and the assembly and disassembly of barriers.
This collection also encompasses the platform for media representatives, various components of the main stage, as well as installations scattered throughout the streets, booths, dressing rooms, and the arena enclosure.
Additional irregularities highlighted by the Prosecutor’s Office involve requesting two quotes from one single company, which falsely presented itself as multiple entities, while numerous emails were dispatched simultaneously to the same individual.
Under Martín’s oversight was the allocation of administrative contracts, including leasing, assembling, and dismantling the structures necessary for various events, a process that initially followed the regulations of the open procedure via the State Platform.
Nonetheless, the Prosecutor’s Office argues that the procurement of these parties was assigned to several companies, while the carnivals that occurred in January and February 2020 were not incorporated into this process, despite being outlined in the file.
Consequently, “due to a reckless absence of foresight that hindered the timely adjudication of the file, the accused, in a deliberate and conscious manner, opted to disregard the legally mandated procedures,” the Prosecutor’s Office states.
Thus, “he extracted all the Carnival-related benefits from the contract file and awarded them through 21 minor contracts. In order to give the impression that the stipulations of public sector legislation were adhered to, he implemented various strategies.”
The Public Ministry further notes that several contracts were awarded on non-business days, asserting that “the claim that it was a specific and not a periodic need was misleading, despite the fact that this celebration is, by nature, periodic, alleging that the aim was to ensure public safety.”
In this regard, the Prosecutor’s Office opines that “the ultimate goal it pursued was to evade the unavoidable political calamity that would have arisen from failing to complete the procedures promptly, consequently jeopardising the celebration of the festivities.”
The Public Ministry reminds that while these events boast international significance, “they do not constitute an essential public service, whose provision is compulsory and cannot be halted,” the document concludes.
