It has become highly uncertain that the ongoing investigation into Khadija Arib will be completed within the foreseeable future. The former President of the House has started a case at the court of The Hague to stop the fact-finding investigation into reports about her behavior in her period as President of the House (2016-2021) and thus prevent disclosure, it was announced on Monday. In addition, Arib demands access to all information collected for the investigation and that it is subsequently destroyed. She also wants compensation.
This is evident from a letter with attachments which President Vera Bergkamp sent to Parliament on behalf of the Presidium (the executive committee of the House of Representatives) and the Registrar (the highest official of the House organisation).
The immediate reason for the letter is a request from a group of MPs who want clarification about, among other things, the long duration of the investigation. Bergkamp (D66) writes that “the presidium and the (acting) clerk” “understand” these concerns. “A more timely conclusion would have been desirable for all concerned.”
As an explanation, she points to “the care” with which the investigation, which the presidium unanimously decided in September 2022, is being carried out. According to her, further delays are “inevitable” now that Arib has “launched legal proceedings”. “In short, the former chairman (…) is trying to prevent the investigation from being completed and the results from being made public.”
Bergkamp writes: “The Presidium regrets that the former chairman, however much she is free to do so, has chosen this path instead of cooperating with the investigation.”
In addition to the reports about the management style of Arib (PvdA), the investigation, conducted by bureau Hoffmann, also focuses on the role and involvement of the presidium and the senior management of the House of Representatives in handling signals about an unsafe working climate. . Arib waged “a battle” with that official leadership of the Chamber in her time as President of the Chamber, she recently told the program Summer guests.
Read also: Investigation into reports of Arib’s behavior seems to have reached an impasse
diligence
In the appendix to Monday’s letter to Parliament, the delegated principals – a number of professors approached by the presidium who oversee a careful and independent investigation – write that they came into contact with Arib at the beginning of March. “We have offered her to talk to both Hoffmann and us for further explanation and explanation.” The goal: “a balanced report”, to which Arib also contributed. “Unfortunately, Ms. Arib has not accepted the options offered to her from the start, she did not want a conversation and has not cooperated to date,” they write. “Her public explanation that, in short, she was not allowed to see anything, is incorrect.”
However, according to the supervisors of the investigation, “conditions have been set regarding the inspection of documents”. Because of the ‘carefulness and balance’, they and the Hoffmann researchers are ‘very reluctant’ to ‘distribute, provide or circulate information, including documents’, the professors write. “This is to prevent them from leading a life of their own, for example in the media, and so that the research can be undesirably influenced.”
Arib complained several times that she was not informed about the allegations against her and that she was not given full clarity about the design of the investigation. For example, she only received the research protocol after the intervention of her lawyers. Before that, she was only offered the opportunity to view that protocol at Hoffmann’s office.
Uncertainty
By calling in the attorney couple Knoops by Arib, the process has been “juridified” and delayed, the supervisors write on the investigation.
On 11 August, the former President of the House of Representatives initiated proceedings at the District Court of The Hague against her successor Vera Bergkamp, (deputy) clerk Geert Jan Hamilton, the three delegated clients and research bureau Hoffmann. The goal: to stop the research and to erase all collected (personal) data.
Ten days later, Arib summoned the Dutch state, the delegated clients and Hoffmann. “This means that the case will now go to court in several respects, which takes a lot of time and energy in preparation for it and distracts from the fact-finding investigation,” said the supervisors.
It is now unclear whether and when the ongoing fact-finding investigation will be completed.
One of the three supervisors of the study, professor of employment law Willem Bouwens, resigned his duties at the end of July for “personal reasons”. Bouwens does not want to explain what they are exactly. “I don’t need to elaborate on that,” he says NRC know by email. The loss of legal knowledge with the departure of Bouwens has been made up for by “the deployment of lawyers who examine the petition and the summons”, the two remaining supervisors write in an email to NRC.
Constitutional vacuum
According to professor of constitutional law Wim Voermans, Arib has “a point” when it comes to the absence of the authority of the presidium and the clerk to conduct an investigation into a Member of Parliament. “The clerk, the highest official, is responsible for his officials, but cannot order an investigation into an elected politician,” says Voermans. “The presidium, consisting of elected MPs, in turn is not authorized to conduct an investigation into another elected MP.”
Therein lies the problem, according to Voermans. “There is a constitutional gap here, a vacuum. The Presidium – and certainly the State Attorney, who advised to conduct an external investigation – should have been aware of this. In my opinion, that legal gap should have been closed first.”
Hansko Broeksteeg, professor of political constitutional law at Radboud University, says that the Rules of Procedure of the House of Representatives do not explicitly state that the presidium has the authority to conduct or have an investigation conducted into a Member of Parliament. But he is less certain than Voermans. “If there is reason to conduct an investigation – and that is beyond dispute in this matter – then it is obvious that the presidium within the institute of the House of Representatives is involved.”
Supplement 29 August 2023, 5:30 p.m.: this article has been updated with a further response from the regulators to the investigation.