Lawyers generally advise clients investigated for corruption not to testify before parliamentary commissions, as their statements could further incriminate them or provide clues to the Prosecutor's Office. Nevertheless, figures like former counselor Salomé Pradas or former PSOE secretary Santos Cerdán have chosen to appear, seeking to leverage media attention to present their side of the story, even against their lawyers' advice.
That they only serve for the grandstanding of the questioner, or that, as happened when Pedro Sánchez appeared a few weeks ago in the Senate, they are a 'you too' mechanism that only generates disaffection.
Despite criticisms regarding their nature as a 'show' or 'you too' mechanism, these commissions are necessary for democratic life. They allow for the definition of political responsibilities, bring conclusions to the plenary for debate and voting, and enable the voices of the protagonists to reach the public without the logical limitations imposed by the judicial process to guarantee the rights of the parties.
The case of the Pujol family demonstrates the impossibility of waiting for a judicial resolution. The case began investigation in 2012, the confession occurred in 2014, and the appearance before the Catalan Parliament took place in 2015, helping to understand the less presentable side of Pujolism. Had they waited for the trial, which recently began at the Audiencia Nacional (National Court), the appearance would have been delayed by over a decade.
Other commissions have demonstrated their historical utility. The Congress commission on 3/11 (11-M) approved counter-terrorism conclusions that are still valid, and the Operació Catalunya commission in the Congress is exposing the actions of the deep state and the refusal of the Justice system to clear up responsibilities. Therefore, inquiry commissions are welcome, even if they sometimes cause frustration.
