A week ago a report on the lack of governance and integrity of the Prosecutors Office in the Netherlands which was requested by “Het College van Procureurs Generaal” has been completed and published by Commission J.W. Fokkens. This rapport was sent on 25th April 2019 ref: 2579192 by Minister of Justice and Safety Ferd Grapperhaus to the Chair of the Second Chamber in the Netherlands for further debate and handling, expect serious consequences. Not surprising Chapter 4 from the report was excluded due to confidentiality and sensitivity findings of the Prosecutors leadership.
Based on the rapport of ANP (Algemeen Nederlands Pers Bureau) on the 25th April 2019 Minister of Justice Fred Grapperhuis mentioned that the findings of the Commission revealed a conclusion which was very critical “not only breaches of integrity behavior of two senior officials of the OM but also the way in which the top of the organization has dealt with the issues “ was stated.
As a follow up however more alarming reports are now surfacing on Prosecutors work methods and ethics surrounding high profile and complex cases. Both the magistrates and judges in the Netherlands have already warned Prosecutors arm of Justice to tackle the breaches of integrity and clean up its mess internally which was published by Marcel Haenen on 24th April 2019 in the NRC.
In Curacao and St.Maarten certain prosecutors have been identified in cases and much has been published in the past
Mink Case (source: report Volkskrant 20 July 2007 ANP)
Prosecutor Saskia de Vries carried witnesses whose reliability and hardly found to be ascertained. The court discussed all of the witness statements as having no relevance. The dossier was 120 ring binders with possible new evidence provided by De Vries however the court declined all.
The witness statements, which were deliberated in the courtroom for many hours, did not prove to be useful as evidence. The suspect was acquitted after 10 years investigating work. She was also the prosecutor on the “Saffier” case of the former president of the CBCS (Central Bank) Tromp who was also acquitted.
Report VU (source : Klaagschrift Vrij Nederland published 22 September 2009 ; report included)
A complaint was launched by 5 prosecutors to the Board of Journalism in Netherlands against VU for publishing their wrongdoings which wrote about the behavior of several prosecutors including Mevr.mr Saskia.Devries. The “klaagschrift” strongly disagreed again with the two journalists who wrote the articles, and not applying “hoor weder hoor” (listening to both sides) principle. The findings from Commission Fokkens however challenges that VU findings become relevant and more credible. In the article on page 10 it explains the dispute of the accusation was about changing and converting information ,pre- lying to judges, manipulation of information and withholding vital evidence. In 2009 de Board of Journalism concluded that accusations were not accurately publicised and that the integrity could not be questioned, however Independent Commission Fokkens report now concludes differently about the integrity of the OM-organization .
Holleerder Case and Yugoslav murder Case (source page 5 of 11 : Sjoemelen Loont ; fiddling rewarded Harry Lensink en Marian Husken, August 2009)
As published Prosecutor Saskia de Vries withheld important evidence from the defense. She lied in an appeal, the court judged. De Vries is still a prosecutor on behalf of the National Parquet. In 2006, she made the case against drug trader Mink Kok and lost due to manipulation with witness files. They also withheld information from them. In Two Recent cases – Holleeder and a Yugoslav murder case – again the lawyers complained about the manipulation of the evidence.
The fact is that lawyers should take these breaches seriously and once these are exposed during a trial it will lead them to the Inadmissibility of the case by the court. Consequence the “waarheidsvinding” (truth finding) principle of a case is lost and a costly police investigation is wasted. The state/country sometimes ends up in millions-damage claims because of this behavior especially withholding of valuable (“ontlastend”; unburden)information.
The process which is currently taking place in the Netherlands with independent Commission Fokkens deserves some credit which is just the beginning to expose noncompliance by the prosecutor's organization not only in the Netherlands but in Kingdom. Any further feedback for any relevant information the independent Commission can be reached This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. or contact BIOM (Bureau Integrity OM) online or call +31-(0)6-11 03 11 32) if closed call +31-(0)88-3713033 or email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Having an example function and upholding democratic law with integrity is vital for any country. End of the day no one is above the law, not even the prosecutors. Even though the findings from the Commission Fokkens report (identifying a lack of proper governance and integrity by the OM-organisation) is worrisome it eventually will force Prosecutors to be more transparent or face consequences. The question now is should critical OM-functions be mandatory screened by an independent body?
Click here to view original articles used as sources.
