DistantNews
Support us
Cardama: García points finger at government for 'criminal' decision, defends contract without 'observations'
🇺🇾 Uruguay /Crime & Justice

Cardama: García points finger at government for 'criminal' decision, defends contract without 'observations'

From El País · () Spanish

Translated from Spanish, summarized and contextualized by DistantNews.

At a glance

News Named sources Context piece
  • Senator Javier García defended a contract for two offshore patrol vessels with Spanish shipyard Cardama.
  • García called the decision to leave the country without OPVs a "criminal" act driven by politics.
  • He asserted the contract was legal and met requirements, citing the Court of Accounts' lack of "observations."

Senator Javier García, a member of Uruguay's National Party and former Minister of Defense, appeared before a special commission investigating the purchase of two offshore patrol vessels (OPVs) from Spanish shipyard Cardama. García defended the contract, valued at approximately 82 million euros, asserting that the decision to leave the country without OPVs was "criminal" and politically motivated.

It was criminal to leave the country, for a political issue, without OPVs.

— Javier GarcíaReferring to the decision to proceed without the patrol vessels.

García explained that he canceled the initial tender because the costs significantly exceeded the allocated budget. He stated that the chosen method for the subsequent purchase was consistent with historical practices used by the Ministry of Defense and previous administrations. He emphasized that the selection of Cardama was based on the Navy's recommendation and supported by technical reports.

The process began, as I said, with a decision based on technical reports.

— Javier GarcíaExplaining the basis for selecting Cardama.

The senator highlighted that Uruguay's Court of Accounts raised no "observations" regarding the shipyard's contract award. "If the Court of Accounts had said that it observed the procedure, I would not have proceeded with the purchase of the OPVs from Cardama. I proceeded because the Court of Accounts told me: 'What you are doing, what the state is doing, is legal and meets the requirements,'" he stated.

If the Court of Accounts had said that it observed the procedure, I would not have proceeded with the purchase of the OPVs from Cardama. I proceeded because the Court of Accounts told me: 'What you are doing, what the state is doing, is legal and meets the requirements.'

— Javier GarcíaDefending the legality of the contract award.

García also addressed concerns about the timing of the company selection relative to the Court of Accounts' report, noting that the contract was signed four months later. He dismissed the questioning as "unusual," emphasizing that the Court of Accounts provides opinions on proposals, not definitive judgments. He further mentioned that Kership, another bidding shipyard, sent a "very kind" letter expressing hope for future opportunities after Cardama was awarded the contract, indicating no administrative challenges were filed by other bidders.

The Court of Accounts opines 'on a proposal, not on the sex of the angels.'

— Javier GarcíaDescribing the nature of the Court of Accounts' review.
DistantNews Editorial

Originally published by El País in Spanish. Translated, summarized, and contextualized by our editorial team with added local perspective. Read our editorial standards.

More Stories

From Our Blog