Sánchez: 5,000 migrants remain in Ceuta, no evidence of Moroccan involvement

The news currently comes from a single source (Infobae, which publishes a report by the New York Times based on statements made by Pedro Sánchez to Cadena SER); no independent confirmation is available. What follows should be read as what the head of the Spanish government stated on August 31, not as a verified picture.

The figures in the statement

According to Sánchez, 5,000 migrants remain in Ceuta weeks after the mass entry of more than 70,000 people from Morocco. Also according to the president of the government, more than 90 percent of those who crossed the border returned to Morocco within 48 hours. Among the people who remained in the enclave, he indicated the presence of 1,200 minors.

The relationship between these figures and the size of the city is the element that explains the political pressure on the case: Ceuta has about 84,000 legal residents. The 5,000 presences declared thus amount to about six percent of the enclave’s registered population, and the more than 70,000 people who entered during the acute phase exceeded eighty percent of residents.

The position on Rabat

Sánchez reiterated that there is no evidence of Moroccan involvement in organizing the wave, and described Rabat’s response as “immediate cooperation” (transl. from Spanish). This is a position the Spanish government has maintained for weeks and which remains contested by the opposition, but the report does not cite supporting documents nor contrary elements: only the executive’s assessment.

The disinformation accusation

The politically heaviest part of the statement concerns communication. Sánchez attributed a disinformation campaign against his own government regarding Ceuta to Russia, Israel and a global far-right network. This is a significant accusation, and it must be recorded for what it is: a statement by the head of the executive, currently without public documentary corroboration.

In support of that accusation, the president’s entourage cited an institutional precedent: on August 6 an EU spokesperson had spoken of profiles traceable to Russia active in amplifying what was happening in the enclave. The connection between the two things, however, is made by Madrid: among the elements available there is no Commission document supporting it. Between the prominence given online by profiles traceable to a country and the existence of a campaign coordinated by three different actors lies a distance that the evidence found here does not bridge.

What we don’t know

The number of remaining presences and the share of returns within 48 hours cannot be independently verified: both come from the same statement. No administrative data underlying them has been published, among the elements available. On the disinformation accusation, essential elements are missing: which content, on which platforms, over what period, and with what attribution method. Nothing currently available also makes it possible to know how the presence of the people who remained, including minors, will be handled in the coming weeks, nor whether and how Madrid has requested intervention by the Union.

The verifiable point to date is procedural and concerns the Union: the only institutional reference cited is the communication from a European spokesperson on August 6, which spoke of online amplification and not of state responsibility.