“I never thought my political career would end in court,” complained Khadijah Arib. “At a time when reliable politicians are needed, there are many issues being raised on this issue. I think it’s terrible.”
The former Speaker of the DPR sat in the right corner of the bench this Friday, next to seven lawyers. Today the civil case he initiated himself will be heard in The Hague court. The tables were filled with piles of papers regarding investigations into allegations of inappropriate behavior by Arib. He considered that the DPR should not have investigated violations at all. That’s why he demanded compensation from the state.
Before the trial began, the judge allowed him to speak. Arib spoke calmly but also a little tense. His tone was different from previous interviews, in which he emphatically denied causing social insecurity among civil servants. Arib later accepted the attack and spoke of a ‘political settlement’. But that was a statement from two years ago.
“I tried to forget it,” Arib said in court. “But towards today, everything came to the surface again. I felt so much injustice. What is this actually about?”
Transgressive behavior
The affair began in the summer of 2022 with two anonymous letters on Vera Bergkamp’s desk (D66). He has now taken over the position of chairman of the DPR from PvdA member Arib. The letters contained complaints regarding the latter matter. In previous years, he was said to have often shouted at officials, excluded people and abused his power. Bergkamp decided (together with the presidency) to conduct an independent investigation. Are the allegations true, was there inappropriate behavior?
“And therein lies the error,” Arib’s lawyer, Geert-Jan Knoops, said on Friday. “DPR members are not like employers and employees. They have to decide for themselves how they interact with each other, what they consider normal.”
He argued that the representatives may have had an interest in positioning Arib as an embarrassment. “And there is no code of conduct from the House of Representatives that states exactly what transgressive behavior means,” Knoops said. “How can that be concluded?”
The study deemed most reports about Arib to be reliable. He spoke in a raised voice. And meddling in matters that are none of his business. Bergkamp, the presidium and clerk of the DPR assessed: Arib caused a ‘socially unsafe work environment’.
‘Reorganization motive for anonymous journalists’
Arib himself was not cooperative in the investigation. According to him, it is unfair if journalists remain anonymous. “He couldn’t defend himself like that,” Knoops said. “You never know exactly what the situation is. And who are you dealing with.”
As Speaker of the DPR, Arib faces reorganization. Parliamentary support staff will have to work differently, and some civil servants are opposed to this. Arib had a disagreement with members of the management team, and therefore held the meeting without criticism. Knoops’ attorneys see this situation as a possible explanation for the complaint against Arib.
State attorney
The state’s attorney is being unreasonable. He defended Bergkamp and the presidency. An independent investigation, lawyers say, is the only thing they can do. “What should you do as an employer?” the state’s attorney said. “You are legally obligated to provide a safe environment. There are two such letters, full of concrete and serious examples. Should you ignore it? Because it concerns a colleague?”
The judge wanted to know why Bergkamp didn’t talk to reporters or Arib first. The lawyer replied: “They are afraid that an explosion will happen soon. Previously there had been formal discussions with Arib. And complaints like this are consistent with the problems he experienced before.” Prosecutors repeatedly emphasized that the investigation was independent, that the incident was substantiated, and that Ms. Arib refused to cooperate.
He will hear in four weeks whether he can continue with a clean name. For Arib, the demand for compensation seems to be just a side issue. Eventually he was able to speak again. The microphone was faulty, but the judge asked him to speak anyway. “But then I had to raise my voice,” said Arib. “That’s allowed here,” the judge replied.
Also read:
Why the Arib incident is also detrimental to politics
This incident not only damaged Khadijah Arib herself, but also the reputation of the DPR, wrote political editor Niels Markus.
