Spanish judiciary rejects interior minister's complaint over Ceuta police gag order

Ministerial complaint over investigative secrecy

Spain's Minister of the Interior, Fernando Grande-Marlaska, submitted a formal letter of concern to Isabel Perelló, President of the Supreme Court and the General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ), on 3 September 2026. The communication addressed an order issued by Audiencia Nacional Magistrate María Tardón, who prohibited the police officers investigating the Ceuta border crisis from briefing their administrative superiors. Grande-Marlaska noted his dual standing as interior minister and career magistrate, stating that he scrupulously respects judicial independence and the exclusive reliance of judicial police on judges, tribunals, and the public prosecutor's office. However, he argued that withholding investigative data from executive leadership directly impedes the government's ability to direct domestic and foreign policy during an active border emergency.

Executive invocation of national security powers

The dispute follows the events of 30 and 31 July, when close to 80,000 people crossed into the autonomous city of Ceuta from Morocco. In the weeks following the crossing, thousands of individuals remained in outdoor encampments or on city streets due to limits in the state reception infrastructure. Approximately one month after the initial entries, the Spanish government formally declared a situation of interest for national security under the provisions of Law 36/2015. Grande-Marlaska contended that, during circumstances of such scale, diligent compliance with court requests should not exclude briefing political superiors on factors essential for state defense and public security. He maintained that providing such operational information to executive decision-makers would not compromise judicial independence.

Judicial leadership upholds investigative independence

Isabel Perelló answered Grande-Marlaska with a letter defending Judge Tardón's constitutional prerogatives and rejecting the government's grievance. Perelló stated that governing bodies of the judiciary are constitutionally and legally barred under the Organic Law of the Judiciary from approving, censuring, or correcting the decisions of any investigating magistrate. She explained that the Spanish Constitution establishes a general duty for all citizens to collaborate with the courts, along with a specialized statutory duty for members of the State Security Forces and Corps acting as judicial police, regardless of their administrative rank or ministerial hierarchy. While Perelló concurred with the minister regarding the severity of the border situation, she insisted on full institutional deference to the investigating court.

In short, I am, as could not be otherwise, in full agreement with you regarding your assessments of the gravity and extraordinary nature of the crisis we are facing, as well as that the actions of the magistrate respond to the exercise of her constitutional functions, for which we must all show the utmost respect.

Scope of the Audiencia Nacional inquiries

Judge Tardón's instructions apply to specialized investigative units within both the National Police and the Civil Guard as they assemble preliminary reports. The magistrate requested these dossiers to determine whether to open a formal criminal case into the mass crossings, focusing specifically on identifying suspected organizers and evaluating prior security alerts received before 30 July. While the Interior Ministry maintained that shared situational awareness remains necessary to deploy state resources and manage public order, judicial authorities affirmed that strict operational confidentiality must be preserved until the investigating judge concludes preliminary assessments.