Spain's courts have become the new political battleground. After the fall of the State prosecutor and the president's brother, Madrid's Provincial Court has now decided that Begoña Gómez, wife of Pedro Sánchez, must stand trial accused of influence-peddling, business corruption, misappropriation and embezzlement of public funds. The coincidence of these three judicial proceedings within little more than a year, as reported by eldiario.es, has fuelled suspicions about whether there is a preconceived plan behind them.

The judicial escalation against Sánchez's circle

The progression of cases against the president's family and associates follows a pattern that has not gone unnoticed by political observers. First came the State prosecutor, accused of an unproven offence of disclosure of secrets. Then came the conviction of David Sánchez, the president's brother, as an accomplice in an abuse of office offence. Now, five judges from Section 23 of Madrid's Provincial Court have upheld judge Peinado's ruling requiring the executive chief's wife to stand trial before a jury.

This sequence of judicial decisions has been publicly anticipated by political, media and judicial sectors for months, even before judges drafted the initial rulings or opened the corresponding proceedings. Television programmes, radio discussion panels and Madrid's power circles were already discussing this timeline as if it were a written script.

Mere coincidence or organised strategy?

The temporal concentration of these three proceedings has raised doubts across wide sectors of public opinion. Is it realistic to think that three members of the presidential circle are simultaneously facing separate judicial investigations without any coordination whatsoever? The question ricochets across Spanish politics without finding reassuring answers.

What is evident is that this strategy—whether deliberate or fortuitous—is generating political consequences opposite to those its promoters might expect. The right, which has capitalised on these judicial decisions as electoral ammunition, sees Alberto Feijóo not gaining votes with each ruling, but losing them to formations like Vox. The extreme polarisation of the Spanish political landscape does not favour those who expected it would.

What does this mean for Spanish justice?

The gravest risk in this scenario is not electoral but institutional. When courts become a political arena and when judicial calendars align with the interests of the political, media, police and judicial right, the independence of justice is called into question. It matters little whether there is an explicit plan or merely coincidences: damage to the credibility of institutions is already a reality.

Begoña Gómez will now be entitled to a fair trial before a jury. But the question hovering over the Spanish judicial system is whether that trial can take place under the conditions of impartiality that every defendant deserves.