Four and five people died in Adamuz. Twenty-three years resulted in injury. The worst railway accident happened since 2013.
As part of institutional transparency, citizens will follow three documented statements by the Minister of Transport, Oscar Puente.
Two of them admit, twisting their words and interpretation of words generously favorable to the minister, a certain ambiguity.
The third is a blatant falsehood, denied by the literalism of the State Official Gazette.
The first lie will concern the renovation of Adamuzova street.
Óscar Puente confirmed between January 19 and 22 that the Madrid-Seville line was “completely renovated” and that it met at the site of the accident “brand new material”.
However, Adif’s technical documentation has shown that there is no rebuilding hub of the road in the left space, up to the solder, which would have approximately five meters of the original 1989-1992 design carriage installed in 2025. The most wanted new truck was five kilometers away.
Please correct the following days: “Integral renovation should be decided tip by tip, not in all its elements”.
This semantic reformulation converts “completely new” to “partially replaced”. It is certainly a commitment, but it admits the difficulty of a flexible interpretation of the language.
The second lie will start at the listening trains. On January 23, the California minister “BULO” (in May) information from EL ESPAÑOL about the non-functionality of three of the four new inspectors worth 127 million euros.
In the same place where the information was denied, Puente confirmed that the Stadler trains remained “in the process of calibration” and that the Talgo 106 had “sufficient homologation problems”.
It is said, I admit what I have denied at the same time.
This voluntary contradiction represents another linguistic manipulation: to call “bulo” an inconvenient truth in order to confirm it with technical euphemisms.
It is again an engaño rebatible via subterfuge that Adif had six trains “in inventory”, even only three agents.
But the third lie does not admit math. It is an absolute falsehood that can be verified by simply reading the BOE.
Royal Decree 690/2025, published in the Official Gazette of the State on 30 July 2025, states in its third-party additional provision: “This replaces the Emergency, Security and Crisis Management Department with a general subdirectory”.
The decree was approved “at the initiative of the Minister of Transport and Sustainable Movement”.
No legal confusion is possible. The verb “queda suprimida” does not mean “reorganize”, “transform” or “change name”. It means I must exist.
The organ was formally decommissioned on 31 July 2025, six months before the Adamuz accident.
Created in 2012, this unit coordinated accident prevention at Adif, Renfe and Aena through monthly meetings with the safety departments of these public companies. It was replaced by “Observatory” the ability to direct control is lackingaccording to the preamble of the royal decree.
Because of irrefutable documentary evidence, government officials and verifiers tried to discredit the information published in this journal.
Some have argued that the Unit is “not” competent in rail prevention, contradicting both the royal decree establishing it and union witnesses and Adif sources. which signal a decline in preventive coordination from its control.
The minister cannot fear a controversial interpretation of the language. BOE does not accept alternative values. The decision is published in legal text with a clear sundial.
To deny it is to deliberately lie to the citizens.
This falsehood is qualitatively different from the previous ones because it directly affects the safety architecture of the railway system. Suppressing a preventive coordinating body and then denying its suppression prevents a legitimate debate about whether that decision contributed to creating the conditions for the tragedy.
If you can now claim superiority from the first moment and argue that the new observatory has equivalent functions with greater efficiency, Spanish speakers could evaluate the coherence of their argument.
But to deny what was published in the BOE, the minister would be debated with a lie.
Ministers are undermining public confidence in state institutions responsible for ensuring transport safety. When a minister denies what is written in the Official Gazette of the State, he is not asking for a right of reply: political perjury.
Spain needs a Minister of Transport who will explain things honestly, who will admit driving mistakes if it’s a hubo, and this explains the controversial decision without resorting to lying.
If Óscar Puente believes that reproducing verbatim what was published in the BOE constitutes dissemination of information, the problem does not lie in this period.
Reside, as we said in a previous editorial, confuses factual verification with hosting and institutional transparency with political disloyalty.
The minister can be wrong in his technical decisions. You can legitimately decide on prior assumptions or organizational models.
But you cannot lie about what is documented in the legislation. Because when a government representative denies what is written in the BOE, he is not defending his leadership: Attacks the same possibility of one democratic taxation.
Leave a Reply