At the very end of a long day of hearing in the court in The Hague, Khadija Arib talks on Friday about several conversations she recently had with Speaker of the House Martin Bosma (PVV) and clerk Peter Oskam. These conversations were about the lawsuit that Arib started after the presidency decided two years ago to conduct an external independent investigation into Arib’s behavior during her time as Speaker of the House. Reports had been received during that period.
Bosma, says Arib, is said to have said in conversations with her that he “thought it was terrible and that he was sorry, just like he was in the presidency.” Before his presidency, Bosma was already a member of the executive board of the House of Representatives and, like all other members, agreed to the investigation. According to Arib, Bosma and clerk Oskam, the highest official in the House of Representatives, also said to her: “Please withdraw that case, otherwise it will be very ugly for you.” A striking accusation, about which Arib did not want to answer questions after the hearing.
Asked for a response to these statements by Arib, Oskam said by telephone on Friday evening that Bosma also finds it annoying that the House of Representatives is facing the former chairman in court. “But she filed that lawsuit. I told her: if you want to get rid of it, you have to withdraw it. That’s how it happened.” And was Arib told that otherwise things would become “very ugly” for her? Oskam: “That seems stiff to me.”
The full investigation report into the reports about Arib was never made public, only a summary summary. That’s it, says Oskam, because it was agreed with the civil servants who cooperated. “But of course there is much more than what has appeared in the press.” The clerk then says about Arib: “She thinks everyone is against her. But there are two sides to the story, and this is the other side. I can’t say more about it. The matter is now before the courts, so I don’t think it would be wise to add fuel to the fire.” Bosma could not be reached for comment on Friday evening.
Also read
Investigation: unsafe working environment under Chamber President Arib
Authorized or not?
The most important question that was discussed in court on Friday was: were the then clerk and the presidium at the time, the executive board of the House, authorized to initiate an investigation at the end of 2022 into reports about Khadija Arib’s behavior during her presidency (2016-2021)?
No, said Geert Jan Knoops, one of Arib’s lawyers. The clerk and the presidium had no authority. “Because there is no employer-employee relationship,” he said. “And that’s basically all there is to it.” An MP is an elected representative without a formal employer, was his argument.
The parties accused by Arib were equally emphatic. Yes, the House of Representatives, as the employer of more than six hundred civil servants, has a ‘duty of care’. The House of Representatives, even more specifically: the clerk and the presidium, were “authorized” and “obligated” to have a factual investigation carried out. This was stated by lawyers for the defendants: the registrar and the presidium, the Hoffmann research agency and three professors who supervised the investigation. The question about the powers of the presidium and registrar, which the court must rule on, is one on which constitutional legal scholars do not agree. Both Arib’s lawyers and the lawyers of the defendant parties cited experts who supported their reading. “That means that this is not the easiest case that we will decide under this roof,” the court said. That will probably happen early next year.
Also read
Under the applause of Speaker of the House Khadija Arib, one official after another collapsed
Revealed more than two years ago NRC that the Presidium, after advice from State Attorney Pels Rijcken, had unanimously decided to conduct an external investigation. This happened after two anonymous letters were received about the attitude and behavior of Arib (PvdA) during her time as Speaker of the House, reporting “abuse of power” and “an unsafe working environment”. The reason for one of the letter writers was the appointment of Arib as chairman of the committee of MPs that would investigate government actions during the corona crisis. This would mean that Arib would again come into direct contact with employees of the House of Representatives.
The detailed allegations about Arib were not isolated. They were recognized and confirmed by the leadership of the official organization of the House of Representatives and followed, among other things, clashes between the works council and Arib. The presidium, led by then Chamber President Vera Bergkamp (D66), asked the Hoffmann research agency to conduct the investigation. Of the seventeen incidents described in the two letters, sixteen were confirmed, the researchers found. In the court in The Hague, one of the lawyers pointed out on Friday that Arib never wanted to give “a substantive response” to the results of the investigation. What Arib always talks about, according to him: “The form and formal aspects of the factual investigation.”
Arib, who was given the floor on several occasions, spoke of a “black day”. She wondered how it could have come to this. “I never thought my political career would end in a courtroom.”
Share Email the editor
Well, well, well! It looks like we have a bit of courtroom drama unfolding in The Hague that could give any prime-time soap opera a run for its money! Who knew politics could be so… *judgment*al? Khadija Arib, who’s no stranger to the spotlight—unless it’s a courtroom spotlight, apparently—is stirring the pot with accusations that would make for a plot twist worthy of the West End.
Let’s break this down, shall we? Arib’s having a chat with Martin Bosma, the Speaker of the House, and Peter Oskam, the clerk, who, for all intents and purposes, seem to be handing her a hefty serving of “you’re really not going to like this.” They suggest she withdraw her lawsuit or face some sort of, as they say, “ugly” consequences. ‘Ugly?’ Sounds like a polite way of saying there’s a potential for *dramatic* repercussions, like arming an episode of ‘Judge Judy’ with actual legal ramifications!
Oskam, bless him, tries to downplay the whole affair, claiming, “That seems stiff to me.” That’s how we describe dodgy Uber rides, not legal conversations about a potential scandal! “Hey, if you want to avoid public humiliation in court, just withdraw it!” Ah yes, the classic “just give up” strategy. Lee Evans would have a field day with that one—imagine him bouncing around the stage, frantically waving his arms, exclaiming how ridiculous it is to be faced with such “friendly advice” from your colleagues. I can almost hear him saying, “Why don’t we all just sit around and sing Kumbaya instead?”
So, what’s the crux of this legal pickle? The investigations conducted into Arib’s alleged dubious behavior during her time as Speaker—a position that one might think requires a bit more than just shaking hands and waving to cameras—have resulted in reports of “abuse of power” and creating an “unsafe working environment.” Sounds like a cozy HR nightmare! Too bad there isn’t a law barring people from being horrible bosses… Oh wait, there is! But try telling that to the politicians!
And here’s the kicker—Arib’s lawyers are arguing that there’s no “employer-employee relationship” here. “Oh sure, just because you’re a politician doesn’t mean you’re responsible for your actions!” Like clubbing seals, this logic doesn’t hold water! Now, if I had a gold coin for every time a public figure said, “You can’t touch me, I’m elected!” I would be *fabulously* wealthy, and I might even be able to hire a few people to throw them the same sob story Arib’s pitching in court!
The courtroom tussle dives deep, with both sides calling in experts like it’s a gladiator match—“My expert says you’re wrong!” “Well, my expert has a Ph.D.! Beat that!” It’s like watching a David vs. Goliath battle, except both sides are trying to shrug responsibility off like it’s a fur coat in summer. As one can imagine, experts disagreeing is about as shocking as a politician dodging a question—shocking but totally expected.
Ultimately, it’s a tale as old as time. A public figure, a suspect past, and a courtroom that might just make or break a career. Arib lamented that she never thought her career would end in a courtroom—neither did we, sweetheart! This isn’t a Hollywood movie; it’s just another day in politics! So let’s tune in for the next chapter! Pinot anyone?
Stay tuned as we eagerly await the next legal twist. It seems we won’t be short on drama any time soon!
