The complaints about the behavior of Khadija Arib (PvdA) during her period as Speaker of the House (2016-2021), as described in two anonymous letters from 2022, are largely endorsed by the people who participated in a factual investigation into this.
This is evident from the summary of the investigation by the Hoffmann agency published on Tuesday. “The two anonymous letters describe seventeen situations. (…) Of these, ‘sixteen situations are supported by information obtained by the investigators’. Substantiation for one situation “has not been established during the factual investigation.”
Ten people who cooperated stated that Arib “addressed officials directly, in some cases raising their voices.” Nine of them “declared that they suffered emotionally afterwards.”
“According to interlocutors, the former chairman did not allow herself to be held accountable for her behavior and did not apologize to the officials concerned after incidents,” the investigation states. This behavior took place “within all levels of the official organization.”
Management of the civil servants rests with the registrar, the highest civil servant. The Speaker of the House is responsible for the political side of Chamber work. Nevertheless, seventeen interlocutors stated that Arib “structurally interfered in, and made decisions about, the official organization.”
But not everything in the two letters is correct. For example, (top) officials have left of their own accord, where the letters state that their departure had to do with Arib’s attitude. Others were not dismissed, as stated, but ‘at her express request’ they were ‘removed from their positions and given another position through their managers’.
The researchers further state that, “although strictly speaking it falls outside the scope of the factual investigation”, fifteen respondents found Arib to be a “very competent” chairman, who was “attentive and involved at times”.
Presidium ‘little decisive’
The summary also shows that the then presidium, the executive board of the House of Representatives, did not act decisively after several signals. For example, Arib was addressed in a conversation by two members of the presidium and two top officials, but this ultimately led to nothing. According to three people involved, this was due to the outbreak of the corona crisis.
Signals that were not about Arib, about an “unsafe situation for employees of the official organization, increasing absenteeism and the departure of employees”, were also not followed up. For example, the presidency decided that a proposed “governance code” was not necessary.
The presidium, led by Chamber President Vera Bergkamp (D66), decided unanimously in September 2022 and after advice from State Attorney Pels Rijcken, to conduct an external investigation.
The immediate cause was two anonymous letters that had been received in the same year with multiple complaints and descriptions of Arib’s behavior behind the scenes. The letters mentioned “an unsafe work environment.” The content of the complaints was confirmed by the then official leadership of the House of Representatives.
Also read
Under the applause of Speaker of the House Khadija Arib, one official after another collapsed
The presidium, which in addition to Bergkamp consisted of eight MPs from different parties, together with the clerk – the highest official of the House of Representatives – ordered the external investigation.
19 (former) civil servants participated in the factual investigation. Two did so with their names, the other 17 did so confidentially. This means that their names are not mentioned in the summary but are known to the research agency. Five people did not accept the researchers’ invitation to participate.
Khadija Arib did not cooperate with the investigation, despite repeated requests to do so. Immediately after the announcement in 2022, she already spoke of “a sham investigation”, “a charade” and “a political settlement” by her successor Vera Bergkamp.
She did not make use of the opportunities offered to Arib until Monday to respond and gain access to what the researchers considered to be the most relevant documents. Khadija Arib could not be reached for comment.
Interim ruling
Arib hired the lawyer duo Geert-Jan and Carry Knoops at the beginning of this year. In August, expecting that the investigation was nearing completion, they initiated two legal proceedings at the court in The Hague. According to the lawyers, the presidium and the clerk, responsible for the civil service, are not authorized to initiate an investigation into a Member of Parliament. Something that constitutional law scholars do not agree on among themselves.
The Knoops duo asked the judge to make a ‘provisional provision’ – an interim ruling until a decision has been made in the substantive proceedings they initiated regarding the legitimacy of the investigation. The goal: to stop the research and thus prevent publication.
In addition, the lawyers on Arib’s behalf demanded access to all information collected for the investigation and that it subsequently be destroyed. They also want compensation.
But an interim ruling will take months to arrive, it appears a recent court decision. The presidency and the clerk think it is “not justified” to wait for this, they wrote in a letter to the House on October 20. They consider it to be in the interest of ‘all’ those involved, ‘including in particular the (former) civil servants of the House of Representatives, that the factual investigation is completed (…) so that lessons can be learned if necessary and aftercare can be provided ”.
No use of summary proceedings
In recent months, the court twice pointed out to Arib’s lawyers the option of quickly obtaining a judicial decision. “Summary proceedings offer the opportunity to request a decision in urgent cases (…) before a specific event or date,” the court wrote on October 25. Nevertheless, Arib and her lawyers did not make use of this. Geert-Jan Knoops did not want to give the reason on Monday.
The judge rejected a request from the lawyers to merge the two legal proceedings previously initiated by them. There exists, it says another recent verdict, ‘no legal basis for it’. Arib then had to pay the legal costs incurred.
The former Speaker of the House also appealed last week to a group of MPs selected by her to prevent publication. In a letter, Arib wrote that it would behoove the House of Representatives to “prevent an unlawful report on the unlawful investigation from being released before the judge has passed a judgment.” The appeal did not have the effect she intended.