Spain is in political turmoil as the Conservative People’s Party (PP) is besieging the government with a flood of inquiries. At the center of the controversy are serious accusations against the father-in-law of Spain’s Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez. The allegations involve the alleged use of public properties as brothels – an issue that is shaking the political landscape and demanding comprehensive transparency and explanations.
Corruption Scandal Expands: The PP Pushes for Answers
After Alberto Núñez Feijóo, the leader of the PP, addressed the issue of corruption in parliament, his party is now pressing full throttle. Both in the Congress and the Senate, the PP has launched initiatives to shed light on this murky affair. The core objective: to find out “to what extent Pedro Sánchez has profited from the disgusting business of prostitution.” The first step involves detailed written inquiries that the executive must now answer. The PP explicitly demands cooperation and transparency from the government.
MUFACE Properties Under Scrutiny: Suspected Involvement in Prostitution
In Congress, the PP’s 18 questions focus on the rental of MUFACE properties. MUFACE is a public mutual insurance company for civil servants. The suspicion: these properties may have been rented to the family of Sánchez’s wife, Begoña Gómez, and subsequently used for activities related to prostitution, sexual exploitation, or human trafficking.
The PP is demanding the “criteria” that were applied in the “review or renegotiation” of these leases. A key question the PP is asking is whether the government was aware of the actual use of the rented properties. Specifically, the party is demanding detailed information on “the rental agreements signed by MUFACE concerning the properties in its possession, as well as the actual use of these properties by third parties and the control and monitoring mechanisms applied by this entity to avoid contractual deviations or irregular use of public assets intended for activities related to prostitution, sexual exploitation, or human trafficking.”
Ester Muñoz, the new spokesperson for the PP in Congress, expressed herself drastically: “The truth can be very harsh, but it is even harder to have a government that hires prostitutes with public money and is surrounded by corruption.”
In parallel, the PP has filed a request for the appearance of Óscar López, the Minister for Digital Transformation and Public Function and head of MUFACE. However, given the majorities in the House of Representatives, its chances of success are slim.
Long Under the Surface, Now in the Spotlight: The History of MUFACE Inquiries
The PP admits that it has been pursuing this matter for some time. Already in April, Feijóo had submitted a series of questions regarding the rental of MUFACE properties. The government’s response at the time was “vague and imprecise,” according to the PP, and “provided no concrete data.” The executive merely indicated that the rental of properties by MUFACE was subject to the provisions of applicable regulations. This has only strengthened the PP’s resolve to bring the truth to light.
Senate Demands Clarification: Were Public Funds Used?
In the Senate, the PP has also registered another fifteen written inquiries with the government. Alicia García, spokesperson for the PP in the plenary hall, emphasized that there are “many indications” that lead Spaniards to believe that the Prime Minister “has exploited prostitution.” A key question from the Senate is whether public funds were used for this purpose.
The Senate’s questions include, among other things, a complete list of MUFACE properties rented in the last 10 years, including tenants, contract dates, terms, and amounts. It also asks how many are currently rented and to whom.
The PP also wants to know “which body or unit within MUFACE is responsible for the management of its real estate assets, whether the Court of Accounts has carried out asset audits or reviews, and which body makes a decision and what procedure is applied for decision-making when deciding on the rental of premises owned by MUFACE.”
Additionally, the PP is requesting information on whether “there have been transfers or acquisitions of properties by MUFACE in recent years,” and also demands the “identification of the legal transactions of purchase or sale, as well as the rental of these transactions, including details of the transaction amounts, dates, and the identification of sellers, buyers, tenants, or landlords, if any.”
These comprehensive inquiries demonstrate the PP’s determination to hold the government accountable and fully clarify the alleged involvement in this scandal. The coming weeks will reveal what answers the government will provide and what further revelations will come to light.
