The former mayor of Altafulla defends the investigated contracts as technical
The former mayor of Altafulla, Fèlix Alonso, defends himself before the Supreme Court asserting that the contracts under investigation were awarded based on technical criteria and without any partisan interest. The defense points out that there are reports that support the legality of the process.
The events date back to the period 2011-2019, when Alonso governed Altafulla. Now, the case has reached the Supreme Court and also affects former councilors such as Salvador Milà and Joan Ignasi Elena, who have testified on the same matters.
Statements by Fèlix Alonso before the Supreme Court
Technical criteria as the central axis
Alonso has made it clear that the contracts analyzed were not motivated by any political favoritism, but by strictly technical reasons. In fact, he has highlighted that the investigation of the case has brought contradictory technical reports to the table, some of which document that the contracting method was correct.
The nature of the investigation and those involved
The judicial process investigates an alleged offense of administrative malfeasance related to direct awards. In addition to the former mayor, former councilors involved in the same cause have appeared, which shows that the case affects various levels of the municipal administration of that time.
Context and local repercussions
Altafulla, focal point of political and judicial controversy
The city of Altafulla is experiencing a moment of tension with this case, which has captured media and political attention. Residents wonder how these contracts might have affected public management and local development over eight years.
The social and political response
The case has caused diverse reactions among parties and citizens. Some defend the work done, while others demand more transparency and stricter control of public award processes to avoid suspicions of partiality.
Technical details of the investigated contracts
The technical reports and their contradiction
The documents submitted to the case show divergent opinions. Some reports support direct contracting as a proper procedure, while others question the lack of transparency. This contradiction is key to the development of the case.
What does administrative malfeasance imply?
The offense under investigation consists of awarding contracts without following established rules, causing harm to the public interest. The defense maintains that this is not the case, and that the contracts were made following technical and legal criteria, without hidden political intentions.
The reality is that the case is still ongoing and leaves pending questions that only the Supreme Court will be able to resolve, while Altafulla remains awaiting what the justice system determines.
Source of the article: Maria Pratdesaba / Miquel Vera | ACN
