The AD published an article on Tuesday evening which is based on audio recordings of a 2019 conversation between lawyers Kasem, Royce de Vries and their office colleague Peter R. de Vries. Royce de Vries had previously enforced a publication ban through summary proceedings, supported by the Amsterdam dean.
Professional secrecy
According to De Vries, the tapes were obtained unlawfully and the publication violates legal professional secrecy. The Amsterdam Court of Appeal came to a different conclusion last week and granted permission for publication, on the condition that the name of one person discussed is not mentioned.
According to the article, Kasem said in the recorded conversation that he was in contact with fugitive Ridouan Taghi, who was sentenced to life in prison last week. Kasem previously denied having contact.
Dennis Wolters, chairman of the Dutch Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NVSA), says he is ‘not surprised’ by it. ‘The article shows that Kasem, as a lawyer, has had contact with a possible client. That’s what criminal lawyers do.’ According to Wolters, the issue has been discussed within the NVSA board, but this has not led to further action. ‘Let’s wait for the dean’s investigation before drawing any conclusions.’
Storm in glas water
In talk shows on Tuesday evening, several lawyers were surprised regarding the fuss surrounding the publication of the AD article. Gerard Spong spoke of Humberto as a storm in a teacup. ‘There is nothing in the article that shows that Kasem has acted in a punishable or disciplinary manner.’
At Op1, lawyer Jan Vlug strongly criticized the court, which gave permission for publication. ‘The judge had to consider whether there was a very serious abuse here, which justifies that we should take the dangers associated with this publication for granted. I don’t see that at all in this article.’
Very dangerous
According to Vlug, the court decision has put Khalid Kasem in danger. The presenter might become the target of criminal revenge, he fears. ‘Very dangerous for Kasem. I have never said that a judge did something wrong. That is also not appropriate for a lawyer. But this judge shows a kind of 19th-century naivete, which we can no longer afford following the murder of Derk Wiersum, Peter R de Vries and the brother of the key witness. The judge made a completely wrong assessment for a rubbish article with only vague suspicions. Very dangerous. I hope it turns out well.’
Jan-Hein Kuijpers, also at Humberto, called the AD article not relevant to the investigation that the Amsterdam dean is currently conducting into Kasem’s actions. ‘It says that he has had contact with Taghi, more often than he initially said. That has little to do with disciplinary law or criminal conduct.’
Carry on
Kuijpers believes that Kasem has somewhat brought the problems upon himself. Openness from the start might have prevented the case from continuing to fester, according to Kuijpers. In his view, the summary proceedings have not been helpful either. ‘That immediately gives it an enormous meaning. When you read the article, it’s not like the tension and emotion are hitting the walls.’
