Madrid, 26 October 2026 — Before the Audiencia Nacional senior officers from the Guardia Civil and the Policía Nacional gave differing accounts of decisions during the Ceutaoperation on 30 and 31 July 2026. According to their statements, the dispute centred on whether a passage in the border fence at El Tarajal should have been closed temporarily. A Policía Nacional representative reportedly argued for closing it, while the Guardia Civil commander on duty kept it open to prevent a “Tapón”, that is, a potentially fatal crush with a risk of people being crushed or suffocated. The statements were recorded before Judge María Tardón on 26 October.
Both sides cited shortages of personnel and equipment. According to the Policía Nacional’s account, only around 20 to 25 officers were available during the critical period; the Guardia Civil also described its deployed force as small, numbering in the low double digits. Formal coordination protocols were not effectively applied on the ground, so decisions were made ad hoc. It remained unclear to what extent the Delegación del Gobierno in Ceuta or the Ministerio del Interior issued direct operational instructions. This is one of the central issues being examined in the ongoing investigation.
Another issue concerned observations made on the night before 30 July. The Guardia Civil commander in charge said he had spotted several Moroccan boats close to the coast. Investigators are examining whether these sightings could be connected to the coordinated entry. No criminal-law assessment of these aspects has yet been made.
The hearing is part of a wider case examining the chain of command and information flow during the operation, as well as coordination between the Guardia Civil and Policía Nacional. The judge requested further documents and visual material, including recordings from fixed cameras, drones and border surveillance systems. The aim is to reconstruct decision-making at 30 July 2026 transparently and establish responsibility.
Political assessments took a back seat at the hearing; the focus was on operational details, the deployment of personnel and security considerations at the border. Further witness testimony and examination of the requested evidence are likely to determine whether the suspicion of breaches of duty is substantiated or whether the on-the-ground assessments were reasonable given the pressure of events. The presumption of innocence applies until the evidence has been fully heard.
Editor: Mira Cadena (Article created with AI assistance).