Chamber President and PVV member Martin Bosma fiercely taken out to his party colleague Gidi Markuszower on Thursday, because he did not show up with a debate he requested. MPs also expressed their annoyance. BBB’er Marieke Wijen-Nass: “I think that outrageous and weak bite.”
The House of Representatives debates on Thursday about what happened around the leakage of the investigation into former chamber chairman Khadija Arib. The Chamber not only struggles with the question of what exactly happened there, but also in what way that can be investigated well.
PVV MP Markuszower is the applicant for the debate and a fierce critic in this case. But about an hour and a half before the debate, his party said through a press release not to participate in the debate.
Geert Wilders’ party is angry because the board of the House of Representatives (the presidency) does not want to share all confidential documents surrounding that investigation. “Having a debate without the requested information puts the room behind the presidency and is completely useless,” the press release says.
According to the PVV, incriminating information about Arib has been “provided, leaked, twisted and made larger”.
Bosma takes ‘with a long distance’ from accusations
“Completely unacceptable,” says Chamber President Bosma about the decision of his party member. “I think it is reprehensible and reprehensible and certainly not neat from Markuszower to be absent.” After all, it was Markuszower who had requested the debate “with a lot of bombing, shouting and suspicions”, says Bosma.
He also calls it “not to be plums at all” that Markuszower says in that press release that the House Board is withholding and twisted information. “Those are accusations that do not touch that side. I am strongly distinguished.”
Markuszower also accused Bosma on Tuesday of withholding information. The PVV MP previously left the parliamentary board with the state of affairs regarding the investigation into Arib.
Room must decide to investigate further
The still confidential decision to investigate the behavior of Arib was in NRC in September 2022 before it was informed of this. How that news was leaked is not yet clear.
A criminal investigation into the officials involved has been initiated, but a different procedure applies to MPs. In that case the ball lies with the Lower House.
The question of whether such a procedure should be set would be discussed during the debate. PVV member Markuszower is a fervent in favor of this. He has announced in the press release to submit an official indictment to initiate that process. But a majority of the room must therefore agree.
‘Scandalous and weak bite’
That made MPs also annoyed annoyed to the absence of Markuszower. SP’er Michiel van Nispen said that the PVV does not show up with debates more often. But requesting a debate on a “precarious issue”, accusing the chairman and not having the debate, thought Nispen thought “cowardly and low”.
“Here at this place is where we have the debate with each other,” said BBB member Marieke Wijen-Nass. “That a party with 37 members does not show up … I think that is outrageous and weak bite.”
The debate nevertheless took place. GL-PVDA, NSC and SP can agree with a BBB plan where a group of MPs are designated. They must then dig through all documents made available by the Presidium and advise whether such a criminal proceedings that the PVV is already requesting should indeed be set in motion. The room votes on that plan on Tuesday.
And the research into Arib itself?
The investigation into Khadija Arib was lodged after anonymous complaints about cross -border behavior during her chairmanship between 2016 and 2021. Arib spoke of an “anonymous dagger region in her back”.
A summary of the study was published in 2023. Not all anonymous complaints are confirmed in this.
Arib also doubted whether the presidency had the right to investigate the investigation based on those anonymous complaints. That was allowed, the judge ruled in February. Arib appealed against that decision.
Speaker of the House and PVV Member Martin Bosma Strongly Criticized His Party Colleague Gidi Markuszower on Thorsday for not Showing Up at a Debate He Requed. Members of Parliament also Expressed Their Annoyance. BBB Member Marieke Wijen-Nass: “I think that’s scandalous and weak.”
The House of Representatives is Debating on Thorsday What Happened Regarding The Leaking of the Investigation Into Former Speaker of the House Khadija Arib. The House is struggling not only with the question of what exactly happened there, but also in what way it can be persuined investigated.
PVV MP Markuszower is the applicant for the debate and a fierce critic in this case. But about an hour and a half before the debate was due to start, his party announced via a press release that it would not participate in the debate after all.
Geert Wilders’ Party is Angry because the board of the house of representatives (the presidium) does not want to share all confidential documents related to that investigation. “Holding a Debate Without the Requested Information Puts the House at Disadvantage Comparted to the Presidium and is Completely Pointless,” The Press Release Said.
Accordance to the PVV, incriminating information about Arib Has Been “provid, Leaked, Distorted and Magnified”.
Bosma ‘Strongly Distances Himself’ From Accusations
“Completely unacceptable,” Says speaker of the house Bosma about his party saucepeaur’s decision. “I find it reprodhensible and deplorable and certainly not fair of markuszower to be absent.” After all, it was Markuszower who requested the debate “with a lot of fanfare, shouting and accusations,” Bosma Believe.
He also calls it “Completely unacceptable” That Markuszower says in that press release that the house board is withholding and thisting information. “Those are accusations that are groundless. I strongly distance myself from that.”
Markuszower also accused bosma or withholding information on Tuesday. The PVV MP Previously Resigned from the House Board Out of Dissatisfaction with the Way Things Were Going Regarding the Investigation Into Arib.
House must decide on Further Investigation
The Still Confidential Decision to Launch An Investigation Into Arib’s Conduct was in NRC in September 2022, even Before She Herself had informed or it. It is not yet clear how that news was leaked.
A Criminal Investigation Has Been Launched Into The Civil Servants Involved, But A Different Procedure Applies to Members of Parliament. In that case, The Ball is in the house of representatives’ Court.
The Question of Whether Such A Procedure Should Be Initiated would be discussed the Debate. PVV Member Markuszower is a strong lawyer of this. He has announced in the press release that he will file an official complaint to start that process. But a majority of the house must also agree to this.
‘Scandalous and Weak’
This Meeant That Members of Parliament also reacted with Annoyance to Markuszower’s Absence. SP Member Michiel van Nispen Said that the PVV often does not show up at Debates. But Requesting a Debate yourself about a “Sensitive issue”, battery the Chairman and then not conducting the debate, Nispen Thought was “Cowardly and Low”.
“This place is where we have the debate with each other,” Said BBB Member Marieke Wijen-Nass. “That a party with 37 members does not show up … I think that’s scandalous and weak.”
The Debate Neverberness Tok Place. GL-PVDA, NSC and SP Canree to a BBB Plan in which a Group of Members of Parliament is Appointed. They must then sift through all the documents made avialable by the presidium and advise Whether Such a criminal procedure, which the PVV is Already Calling for, Should Indeed be initiated. The house will vote on that plan on Tuesday.
And the Investigation Into Arib herself?
The Investigation Into Khadija Arib was launched following Anonymous Complaints about Transgressive Behavior Duration Her Chairmanship Between 2016 and 2021. Arib Spoke of Anonymous Dagger in Her Back “.
In 2023, a Summary of the Investigation was published. Not all anonymous complaints have bone confirmed in it.
Arib also Doubted Whether the presidium had the right to launch the investigation on the Basis of Those Anonymous Complaints in the First Place. The Judge Ruled in February That This was Allowed. Arib Has Appealed Against That Decision.