Former police commissioner José Manuel Villarejo has accused former Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy of orchestrating an operation to politically destroy Eduardo Zaplana, who is on trial for alleged corruption in Valencia. Villarejo, testifying in the Erial case trial at Zaplana’s request, claimed that Rajoy urged the National Intelligence Center (CNI) and the Civil Guard to discredit Zaplana to prevent him from challenging for leadership of the People’s Party (PP). Villarejo stated that the head of the Civil Guard’s Central Operating Unit (UCO) informed him that the operation against Zaplana was fabricated, with the intention of discrediting him.
Villarejo also implicated the CNI in the operation, alleging that a Syrian citizen who was a confidential informant for intelligence services was involved. Imad Al Naddaf Yaloud testified that he was questioned by the police about his compatriots and “if we had seen anything strange” as a representative of the Arab community in Valencia. Yaloud rented a flat in Valencia in 2008 that had previously belonged to Zaplana, and found a “roadmap” of the corrupt scheme to collect and repatriate kickbacks hidden in a wall with a safe. Villarejo stated that there was more political interest in discrediting Zaplana within his own party than in the opposition party.
In addition to Rajoy, Villarejo pointed to the former director general of the Police, Juan Cotino, as another interested party in Zaplana’s downfall. Villarejo described Cotino as a close friend who was heavily reliant on Rajoy. When asked if Cotino was interested in investigating Zaplana, Villarejo suggested that he was pressured to do so by higher authorities due to concerns that Zaplana could challenge for leadership in the future. The prosecutor chose not to question Villarejo further on his statements.
Following Villarejo’s testimony, Marcos Benavent, the former manager of the public company Imelsa, and self-proclaimed “money junkie,” took the stand. Benavent, who provided authorities with the roadmap of the corrupt scheme, changed his story in court, claiming that he and the Syrian informant fabricated the discovery of the documents in Zaplana’s former residence. Benavent attributed his contradictory statements to being under the influence of alcohol and drugs during questioning and feeling pressured to implicate politicians and businessmen involved in the case.
Benavent revealed that his left-wing lawyer, in collaboration with the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor, encouraged him to exaggerate the case to harm the PP, politicians, and businessmen. This admission raises questions about the motivations behind the investigation and the credibility of the evidence presented in court. The conflicting testimonies from key witnesses suggest a complex web of political intrigue and manipulation surrounding Zaplana’s trial. As the trial continues, further revelations may shed light on the true nature of the corruption allegations against Zaplana and the role of influential figures in his downfall.
