A major scandal is unfolding in Andalusia over the management of government contracts at the height of the pandemic. Regional government representatives have admitted in court that in 2020 they changed the oversight process for emergency medical purchases without preparing a single required technical document. This decision directly affected the allocation of 242 million euros between state and private clinics.
Instead of the standard procedure with preliminary checks, officials switched to ongoing financial oversight based solely on an oral request from one of the deputy health ministers. The official paperwork that should have accompanied such an important decision was simply nonexistent. This fact was revealed in court for the first time by the deputy economy minister, who testified as a witness.
Why was oversight weakened—and who pushed for the changes?
During the proceedings, it became clear that in 2020 the regional leadership ignored all the standard approval stages: there were no proposals, no technical reports, and no mandatory financial oversight analysis. The decision was made based on a verbal conversation between two high-ranking officials. The judge was visibly surprised to learn that there were no documents justifying the changes.
The Deputy Minister of Economy explained that she had been pressured by subordinates to simplify spending oversight and shift audits to after the contracts were already signed. She defended herself by saying that the region faced an enormous surge in hospitalizations and deaths that year, requiring urgent action. However, other witnesses, including internal control officers, confirmed that two official reports had already been prepared before the oversight process changed. These reports blocked part of the spending due to legal violations.
Court’s Reaction Raises New Questions for Officials
According to investigators, these documents might have led to the hasty move to the new oversight procedure. The court investigation is now trying to determine why regional leaders ignored the warnings and proceeded to break the law. Other top officials are expected to be summoned to court soon to explain how such a controversial decision was made without any formal justification.
Particular attention is being paid to the role of former deputy ministers of finance and health, who at the time were the second-in-command in their departments. The opposition is demanding that the government release the full set of documents related to this decision to clarify the legal grounds for bypassing the preliminary approval of expenditures.
Budget Impact and Suspicions of Price Gouging
During the hearings, it emerged that after changes to the oversight process, prices for medical services provided by private clinics were raised, even though more budget-friendly rates had previously been agreed upon. The former chief financial officer of the health service was unable to clearly explain why the decision was made to increase the cost of surgeries, especially since prices generally decrease in competitive markets.
Meanwhile, internal control staff confirmed that they had repeatedly criticized the use of emergency procedures for contractor selection and insisted on the need for stricter oversight. The next court session is scheduled for June 25, when both current and former heads of the regional health service will testify.
