Serena Essed: “DNA mag niet op de stoel van de rechter gaan zitten” - ABC

Añadido: 2026-05-19

[00:00:00]A matter concerning the Public Prosecutor, um, which also came up regarding the indictment.

[00:00:08]And um yes, so we have the request for that indictment, and the National Assembly has a very clear legal role in this, which is that the DNA is the only body allowed to rule on the question of whether that indictment is, in itself, in the public interest from a political and administrative perspective. Point.

[00:00:34]So the National Assembly is not going to play mini criminal judge to see if there is enough evidence? Can the people be designated as suspects?

[00:00:41]Yes or no, it is not their role. So, um, um, yeah, when I read that the request for further explanation, uh, that was asked of the Public Prosecutor was rejected.

[00:00:55]Naturally, Parliament is not very happy about that. Doesn't it make you wonder, okay, you're looking, Frown?

[00:01:00]No. Yes yes yes I I I follow you. I yes no der Pen or at least that the it is a committee appointed and that committee it blunders over uh the request for that indictment and they weren't so happy that uh the Prosecutor General actually said: "I have already provided sufficient information.

[00:01:18]I will provide further information in writing and for an oral explanation uh I will not come."

[00:01:23]And on the one hand, I can understand that the Public Prosecution Service is thinking: listen, there is a question in Parliament that needs to be answered, that needs to be answered, about the political and administrative system and how that relates to the public interest. And in answering that legal question, substantive criminal law matters are not addressed. So it can become a bit of a difficult position to do all kinds of things there.

[00:01:52]If, as an official, you have no other political affiliation other than your criminal judicial powers. At the same time, um, I think in that constitutional constructive cooperation it might actually be useful if eh consultation takes place um, where they clearly define themselves regarding the legal role they have, right? Because if someone asks for clarification, you can always say: "I can, I lie," up to the point where the law says I must explain myself. Matters concerning the substance of that criminal case, surely that belongs with the judge? But when it comes to other general matters, we can explain that. So it is a bit, yes, it comes at a somewhat unfortunate time, certainly in that whole discussion that has also been dragging on for several months now regarding the Public Prosecutor and the judiciary. So, uh, I hope in any case that the National Assembly can nevertheless reach an adequate decision regarding that indictment.

[00:02:55]Yes, how do you phrase it again? The DNA only needs to examine whether the public interest is served by what the law states—what those formulations, such as Article 5 of the Indictment Act, impeach.

[00:03:06]DNA determines that. I am quoting for you now, mind you. The National Assembly does not assess the merits of designating the political office holder in question as a suspect within the meaning of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but assesses solely whether his or her prosecution should be initiated in the public interest from a political and administrative perspective. Point.

[00:03:34]DNA alone must answer that question.

[00:03:36]And if DNA doesn't, uh, deem it in the interest, what happens then?

[00:03:41]Then the request will be rejected, right? And then he is not charged and therefore cannot be prosecuted. So the National Assembly will have to consider this question, and I hope that those three branches of government can still interact with each other in a constructive, courteous manner. Yes.