Case Against Mogán Mayor Closed Due to Lack of Justification

The instructor had previously closed the case in September 2024 with a brief order, consisting of only nine lines justifying his decision. The popular accusation sought to annul this ruling due to “absolute lack of motivation,” yet the same judge has now rejected the appeal with another resolution that is only slightly more detailed.

Initial Closure of the Case

On 2 September 2024, the presiding judge of the Investigating Court No. 2 in San Bartolomé de Tirajana, Rodrigo Álvarez Riquelme, ordered the provisional closure of the investigation into whether the mayor of Mogán, Onalia Bueno (Juntos por Mogán), and other members of her government granted salary increases to certain public workers as a reward for their collaboration in the Ciuca electoral campaign, under which the current mayor contested the 2015 elections.

The order for closure is a mere two pages long. The judge addresses the legal grounds—the section where he must provide justification for his decision—in just nine lines.

“From the actions reported, the perpetration of the crime justifying the formation of the case does not appear to be duly justified, therefore (…) it is necessary to decree the provisional closure of the proceedings,” the judge states, without elaborating further on why, in his view, those salary increases—invalidated by a final ruling in the contentious-administrative courts—had not been granted to reward these employees for their connection to the government led by Onalia Bueno, as asserted by the Civil Guard in the report that initiated the case.

Subsequent Developments

On 26 August 2025, nearly a year later, the same judge issued another order, also two pages long but slightly more extensive (the legal grounds contain seven paragraphs), rejecting the appeal against the initial closure submitted by the popular accusation represented by Isabel Santiago, a former councillor of Nueva Canarias (NC) in Mogán. This appeal claimed that the decision suffered from “absolute lack of motivation” and thus affected effective judicial protection.

“The duty of motivation does not authorise the demand for exhaustive and detailed legal reasoning covering all aspects and perspectives that the parties may have regarding the issue being decided, rather, it is sufficient that the resolutions are supported by reasons that allow understanding the legal criteria underpinning the decision,” the judge responds, quoting a report from the Public Prosecutor’s Office in another matter.

The Investigation

This procedure investigated the mayor of Mogán, several councillors from the government during the 2015-2019 term, and the public employees who benefited from the salary increases for alleged crimes of malfeasance, influence peddling, misappropriation, and illegal appointment. This is one of the separate cases into which the original investigation concerning the alleged vote-buying scheme by Ciuca was divided in 2022, having been archived due to the statute of limitations on events related to the 2015 elections and lack of evidence regarding the alleged malpractices during the 2019 elections.

As part of this procedure, the Civil Guard had searched municipal offices and obtained documentation regarding salary increases, in some cases of up to €30,000 annually, for specific officials, including campaign collaborators for Ciuca or even a cousin of the mayor.

In an extensive report on these inquiries, the judicial police concluded that these salary increments were due to the mayor’s “personal will” to “satisfy the demands of the officials for their involvement in the procurement and processing” of votes in the 2015 elections or due to “personal and familial relationships.”

The Civil Guard noted that one of Ciuca’s collaborators received a specific increment of up to €30,000 annually to match the salary of the municipal secretary or the auditor, while another employee from group C2 was awarded an extra €18,000—€2,000 more than a group A2 employee despite having lesser responsibilities. Such increments are meant to compensate for “technical difficulty, dedication, responsibility, incompatibility, risk, or hardship” of the position.

First Closure and Appeal

After just over two years of investigation, Judge Álvarez Riquelme provisionally closed the case in the aforementioned order on 2 September 2024, citing the general absence of a “proper justification for the perpetration of the crime,” without delving into the particular cases or the issues that, in the view of the judicial police, constituted “unequivocal evidence” of the municipal government’s intent to reward certain municipal workers for these partisan, personal, or familial ties.

The popular accusation requested the annulment of this closure order. In a reform appeal (before the same judicial body), it argued that this ruling lacked “any reference to the specific case” and that the instructor resorted to a “stereotyped cut-and-paste that could serve as a model/template for the generic closure of any procedure.”

“It goes without saying that the motivation of a judicial ruling is a duty of justification and articulation of the reason for the decision, thus it requires an explanation and argumentation of what is resolved therein,” asserted the accusation in that appeal, recalling that Article 120.3 of the Constitution stipulates that “judgments shall always be motivated.” Moreover, it highlighted that the Organic Law of the Judiciary extends this obligation to the orders it issues.

“Not even the reasons for deciding on the closure of the procedure can be inferred,” the popular accusation pointed out in that document.

The Second Closure

In his response to the appeal, the judge noted that the salary increases for eight municipal workers constituted a “legal irregularity” but did not “constitute criminal infringement.” This was the same thesis defended by the Public Prosecutor’s Office, which termed the municipal government’s actions as “administrative illegality.” The contentious-administrative courts annulled the modification of the specific complements agreed upon by Onalia Bueno’s government after the Government of the Canary Islands challenged it for multiple infringements, including the lack of justification for those increases.

For the investigating magistrate, “there are no indications” that these actions, this “administrative illegality,” aimed to “reward” or “favour economically” these public employees “as gratitude for their contribution to Onalia Bueno’s electoral campaign.” Moreover, the judge continued, “especially when the original case concerning this issue (the alleged vote-buying plot in the 2015 elections) was definitively closed “due to the statute of limitations on the events.”

“Additionally, the events that originated this procedure (regarding the additional payments to supportive officials) took place in 2015, with the case being opened in 2022, meaning the acts could be subject to statutes of limitation,” the investigating judge indicated, who, in rejecting the malfeasance charge, did not analyse the charges of misappropriation or influence peddling, “which would be entangled in the first” and did not find illegal appointments since it was not “raised in the procedure” that the beneficiaries of those positions and specific complements lacked requirements for their positions.

Other Cases

Aside from the original case concerning the alleged electoral fraud in 2015 and 2019, the four separate proceedings opened as a result of this initial investigation have all been archived. In addition to the recent one regarding the additional payments, which may still be appealed to the Provincial Court of Las Palmas, the presiding judge of Investigating Court No. 2 in San Bartolomé de Tirajana also closed another case, which investigated the mayor for the order given to an official to disconnect remote access for Civil Guard agents involved in the search of municipal offices.

The judge decreed the closure of this case in September 2023 without resolving all appeals. In fact, one of these, submitted by the popular accusation against the €5,000 bond imposed to allow their participation, was addressed in September 2024, a year after the closure and 17 months after submission. Notably, the same judge did permit the popular accusation to participate without a bond in the case regarding the additional payments.

The other two separate cases were processed in Investigating Court No. 1 of San Bartolomé de Tirajana. One of these, concerning alleged rigging to benefit a businessman who reportedly financed Ciuca in the 2015 elections, was archived without hearing from the key witness, who was mistakenly charged. The other investigation, regarding minor contracts with two advisors, was prematurely closed because the instruction was extended beyond the deadline.