The Party for the Animals had been in crisis for almost four weeks, due to reports of possible violations of integrity surrounding party leader Esther Ouwehand. On October 6, the new party board hoped to put an end to this with a firm press release: all reports against Ouwehand came from the old board and were “unfounded.” The party’s integrity secretary, who was handling the reports, had done so “in an incorrect and careless manner.”
But it is precisely because of that press release that the crisis is not over yet, as it became apparent in the Amsterdam court on Wednesday afternoon. The integrity secretary demands in summary proceedings that the press release be corrected: she believes that her reputation has been damaged and that she has done her job well. The new board refuses that. If the board members are forced to do so, their lawyer told the judge, “it could lead to major consequences, in the middle of election time.”
Also read
The other side of Esther Ouwehand
Rehabilitation
The hearing mainly revolves around a report from the old board of August 31 against Ouwehand and her political assistant. That report was about emails from this assistant, which contained strategies to influence the old board and remove one board member. The integrity secretary had discussions about this with Ouwehand and her assistant, but they saw no problem. The integrity secretary did: she did not think the report against Ouwehand was concrete and therefore inadmissible, but she believed that the report against the political assistant was well-founded.
In terms of content, it is a technical lawsuit about reporting rules. In the background is the question: has the new board gone too far in the rehabilitation of party leader Esther Ouwehand, at the expense of the integrity secretary?
The lawyer of the Party for the Animals, Marco van Duijn, lists in court the mistakes allegedly made. The old board could have had a conversation with the political assistant about his emails, then a report would not have been necessary. Party leader Ouwehand was “heard” without her knowing that a report had also been made against her. The integrity secretary was “emotional” and had difficulty “assessing the matter from a business perspective”. And according to the new board, the press release would not have had such major consequences: the name of the integrity secretary was not mentioned and did not appear in the media.
‘To the best of our knowledge’
The integrity secretary himself sees it completely differently. Ouwehand herself was not there as a defendant, she told the judge, and was therefore not heard. She was there as the employer of her political assistant. In addition, she was not allowed to tell Ouwehand that there had been a report against her without the reporter’s permission. The integrity secretary says that she had followed the reporting procedure “to the best of her knowledge”. And even though her name was not mentioned, everyone in the party and in its network knows that it is about her.
The judge wants to know: why did the board not discuss the accusations against the integrity secretary with itself, but put them in a press release? Apparently the party’s interests had come first. According to the judge, that you are incorrect and careless is “the worst thing you can hear as an integrity secretary.”
It all happened “in a pressure cooker,” says the party’s lawyer. And the board wanted to respond to an article in NRCwhich stated how Ouwehand had put pressure on the integrity secretary.
According to the lawyer, the party had offered to remove the press release from the party website. But that is not the same as a correction, he also knows. The judge says that the two parties should try to reach an agreement together. She makes it clear that a rectification demand will not be granted quickly, but that she also does not simply believe that the party has dealt well with the integrity secretary. What else threatens: a ruling in these summary proceedings on November 8, exactly two weeks before the House of Representatives elections.