Spain • July 22, 2026 • EPM Editorial Desk • 🌿 Progressive

Public millions, a witness, and a cracked coalition defending Zapatero

Businessman Julio Martínez confirmed to judge Calama that Zapatero intervened to secure 53 million euros in public funds for Plus Ultra during the pandemic.

Fifty-three million euros in public funds went to Plus Ultra during a pandemic that pushed millions of Spanish workers into unemployment. On Tuesday, according to Spanish press reports, businessman Julio Martínez told National Court judge José Luis Calama that former Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero was the one who made it happen. The government's response was to have spokesperson Elma Saiz defend Zapatero's presumption of innocence — not address the testimony itself. 🔹 What happened: Martínez confirmed his account before judge Calama, naming Zapatero as the intermediary behind the 53-million-euro credit to Plus Ultra through SEPI. Saiz listed the institutional bodies that reviewed the loan — SEPI's technical services, external advisors, a Madrid court, the European Commission, and the Tribunal de Cuentas — and declared «with total conviction» that the government's conduct was correct. She acknowledged that co-defendants have adopted «different versions and defense strategies,» a dynamic that government and PSOE sources privately attribute to the case of businessman Víctor de Aldama, who avoided prison while former minister José Luis Ábalos was sentenced to 24 years in the pandemic masks case. 🔹 Why it matters: For the citizens who funded SEPI's pandemic resources, institutional sign-offs are not the same as accountability. Second Vice President Yolanda Díaz acknowledged exactly that, saying there is «unease, sadness, and deep concern among citizens» and demanding that Zapatero give explanations. Díaz also called on all parties to «let justice act,» visibly separating herself from the unconditional defense maintained by the Socialist bloc within the coalition. The government's counter-argument — that intermediation would have made no sense because the loan followed technical criteria — does not address why a co-defendant is now naming the former prime minister before an active judge. 📌 EPM Take: Yolanda Díaz said what the Socialist side of the government refuses to say out loud, and she said it from the same Moncloa briefing room. That is not a messaging slip — it is a calculated distance from a case centered on 53 million euros of public money distributed while Spanish families faced collapsing incomes. The Ábalos-Aldama dynamic the government privately cites is also telling: Ábalos got 24 years, Aldama did not go to prison. That outcome did not happen by accident. It reflects what cooperation with prosecutors can deliver. The scenario no one is naming: if Martínez's confirmed testimony deepens the case against Zapatero, the government's wall of institutional endorsements will not be what protects him — and Díaz seems to already know it. ✍️ EPM Editorial Desk | erickprometeomedia.com

A businessman under indictment confirmed before National Court judge José Luis Calama that former Spanish Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero personally intervened to secure a 53-million-euro public loan to airline Plus Ultra. According to Spanish press reports, the government's response on Tuesday was to have spokesperson Elma Saiz restate — «with total conviction» — that the executive's conduct was correct. The judge will decide whether that conviction is legally relevant. 🔹 What happened: Julio Martínez ratified his testimony before judge Calama, naming Zapatero as the figure behind the 53-million-euro SEPI credit to Plus Ultra during the pandemic. Saiz defended the process by enumerating the institutions that reviewed the file: SEPI's technical services, external financial and legal advisors, a Madrid court, the European Commission, and the Tribunal de Cuentas. She acknowledged the existence of «different versions and defense strategies» among co-defendants but refused to analyze them publicly. Government and PSOE sources privately attribute this strategic shift among defendants to the outcome of the pandemic masks case, in which businessman Víctor de Aldama avoided prison while former minister José Luis Ábalos received a 24-year sentence. 🔹 Why it matters: Sound public governance requires that 53 million euros in state funds can withstand judicial scrutiny, not just institutional endorsement. The Ábalos-Aldama outcome — 24 years for the minister, no prison for the cooperating businessman — has recalibrated the incentives for defendants in high-profile cases, and Martínez's confirmed testimony before judge Calama reflects that new calculus. Even within the government, Second Vice President Yolanda Díaz broke ranks, stating that Zapatero «must give explanations» and acknowledging «deep concern among citizens.» The government's insistence that no favors were granted and the process was purely technical now competes directly with sworn court testimony. 📌 EPM Take: The government is deploying a list of institutions to defend a process, but none of those institutions — the European Commission, the Tribunal de Cuentas, the Madrid court — had access to what judge Calama now has: Martínez's ratified testimony naming Zapatero directly. Institutional validation of a file is not the same as judicial clearance of the conduct behind it. EPM has reported on how Spain's disciplinary mechanisms stalled in the Peinado case; here the judicial track is active and advancing. The conservative principle at stake is straightforward: 53 million euros of public money demands full accountability, not a spokesperson's declaration. The scenario the executive is not preparing the public for — what happens if the testimony holds and the institutional shields the government cited prove insufficient before judge Calama. ✍️ EPM Editorial Desk | erickprometeomedia.com

Millones públicos, un empresario ante el juez y grieta en el Gobierno

Julio Martínez ratificó ante el juez Calama que Zapatero intermedió para obtener 53 millones de euros públicos destinados a Plus Ultra durante la pandemia.

Mientras el Gobierno español defiende que 53 millones de euros de fondos públicos se destinaron a Plus Ultra siguiendo criterios técnicos estrictos, el empresario Julio Martínez declaró ante el juez de la Audiencia Nacional José Luis Calama que fue el expresidente José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero quien intercedió para conseguir ese préstamo. La portavoz Elma Saiz respondió con la defensa de la presunción de inocencia. Pero fueron los ciudadanos quienes pusieron ese dinero. 🔹 Lo que pasó: Martínez ratificó su testimonio ante el juez Calama señalando directamente a Zapatero como intermediario del crédito de 53 millones concedido a Plus Ultra durante la pandemia. Saiz rechazó valorar las «distintas versiones y estrategias de defensa» que están surgiendo de otros imputados en la causa, y reiteró que el expediente pasó por los servicios técnicos de la SEPI, asesoramiento externo, un juzgado de Madrid, la Comisión Europea y el Tribunal de Cuentas. El Ejecutivo sostiene que no hubo favores ni presiones. 🔹 Por qué importa: Los trabajadores y contribuyentes que financiaron los fondos de la SEPI durante la pandemia merecen una respuesta que vaya más allá de la presunción de inocencia institucional. La vicepresidenta segunda Yolanda Díaz fue la única voz dentro del Ejecutivo que reconoció «inquietud, tristeza y mucha preocupación en la ciudadanía» y pidió que Zapatero dé explicaciones. Díaz también reclamó que «dejemos actuar a la justicia», separándose del discurso de respaldo incondicional que mantiene el sector socialista del Gobierno. La división interna es ahora pública. 📌 Conclusión EPM: La grieta entre Saiz y Díaz en la misma rueda de prensa de la Moncloa no es un accidente de comunicación: es la señal de que dentro del Ejecutivo hay quienes calculan el costo político de defender sin matices a un expresidente mientras un empresario lo señala ante un juez. Son 53 millones de euros públicos los que están en el centro del expediente, fondos que se destinaron en plena pandemia cuando millones de familias españolas enfrentaban pérdida de empleo e ingresos. EPM cubrió cómo el caso Peinado quedó sin resolución disciplinaria; aquí el proceso judicial sigue activo. La pregunta que Yolanda Díaz abrió sin cerrar: si la actuación fue tan correcta y tan auditada, ¿por qué Zapatero aún no ha salido a explicarla él mismo? ✍️ EPM Editorial Desk | erickprometeomedia.com

📤 Share on Telegram

¿Te gustó este artículo? Recibe cobertura global en tu correo.

Suscríbete gratis / Subscribe free