Lorraine Williamson
Spain’s long-running Koldo case latest chapter has ended in the Supreme Court with a final burst of political accusations, denials, and competing versions of what happened during one of the country’s most closely watched corruption trials.
The first trial linked to the so-called mask contracts affair is now set for sentencing, leaving former transport minister José Luis Ábalos, his former adviser Koldo García, and businessman Víctor de Aldama waiting for the court’s decision. The case centres on alleged irregular commissions connected to the purchase of medical supplies during the pandemic.
A final courtroom twist
Koldo García used his final statement before the Supreme Court to deny receiving bribes and to insist that he had been unfairly portrayed during the investigation.
But the most politically explosive moment came when he alleged that the Partido Popular, through its lawyer, had offered him a pact to collaborate “by lying and deceiving” Spaniards in exchange for avoiding prison. The PP has denied the claim, calling it false and rejecting any suggestion that such an offer was made.
The allegation does not change the legal facts of the case by itself. It is Koldo García’s version, delivered during his final opportunity to address the court. However, it adds a fresh political layer to a trial already heavy with accusations, party rivalry, and public distrust.
What the trial has been about
The proceedings have focused on alleged irregularities in mask contracts awarded during the COVID-19 emergency.
At the centre of the case are three figures. Ábalos was the transport minister at the time. Koldo García was his adviser. Aldama has been described as a businessman and intermediary involved in the contracts.
Prosecutors have argued that a corruption network operated around the Ministry of Transport. However, Anticorruption prosecutor Alejandro Luzón reportedly ruled out the idea that Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez headed the alleged network, while maintaining accusations against those on trial.
Koldo denies the money trail
García’s defence has demanded his acquittal, arguing that there is no evidence proving he received monthly payments of €10,000 from Aldama.
His lawyer questioned the interpretation of the Guardia Civil’s UCO reports and argued that references used against García could have other explanations. In one widely reported line, the defence said that “K” could mean many things, not necessarily Koldo.
García also denied having hidden wealth, insisted he had not received gifts or payments, and accused Aldama of choosing “the easy path” by cooperating with the authorities in a way that, according to García, shifted blame onto others.
Ábalos also rejects the accusations
Ábalos has also denied wrongdoing. In his final intervention, he criticised the way the case had developed and said he had not been able to properly defend himself because he did not have access to some personal devices.
He presented himself as the target of a case shaped by political and media pressure. The former minister has repeatedly denied receiving bribes or participating in any corrupt scheme.
Aldama’s cooperation remains central
Aldama’s role remains one of the most sensitive parts of the trial.
He has admitted involvement in the alleged scheme and cooperated with the justice system. Prosecutors have acknowledged that cooperation, but also stated that he did not tell the whole truth. His statements have nevertheless been central to the accusations facing Ábalos and García.
That has made his credibility a key issue. For the defence, Aldama is a man trying to reduce his own legal exposure. For the prosecution, his testimony forms part of a wider evidence base.
Why this case still matters
The Koldo case has become more than a court file. It sits at the meeting point of pandemic procurement, public trust, and Spain’s fierce political climate.
The purchase of emergency medical material during COVID was done under extraordinary pressure. Across Europe, governments were forced to move quickly, often through fast-track procedures and unfamiliar suppliers.
That context does not remove the need for accountability. But it helps explain why pandemic-era contracts have become a major area of legal and political scrutiny.
In Spain, the case has also fed a broader battle between government and opposition. Each new statement, leak, or court appearance has been used to challenge the credibility of political rivals.
Now the decision moves to the judges
The trial is now over. The arguments have been made. The final decision rests with the Supreme Court.
For Ábalos, Koldo García, and Víctor de Aldama, the judgment will decide their immediate legal future. For Spanish politics, the case will continue to carry weight, whatever the outcome.
If convictions follow, the affair will deepen questions over pandemic contracts and political accountability. If the court finds the evidence insufficient, the debate will shift towards the investigation itself, the role of testimony, and the political use of corruption allegations.
Either way, the Koldo case has already left a mark on Spain’s public life.