The Dutch Vendetta Against President Bouterse

The Dutch Vendetta against President Bouterse

A Campaign to Character Assassinate Begins Most readers of this article are aware that a Dutch Court convicted the current President of Suriname Desire Delano Bouterse in absentia in 2001 on one charge of drug trafficking and sentenced him to a term of seven years in prison. What most readers do not know is that this conviction was the result of a decade long campaign by certain Dutch governmental authorities to destroy the character and reputation of Mr. Bouterse. This campaign began in September 1992 when the former Minister of Justice in the Netherlands, Hirsh Bailin, dedicated himself to the task of removing Mr. Bouterse as a political force in Suriname. Bailin was convinced that within two years he could create a case that would allow a court to indict Bouterse and get him imprisoned in the Netherlands on drug trafficking charges. Lubbers, the former Prime Minister of the Netherlands had a plan to bring Suriname back under Dutch control under the colonial charter of the Kingdom of the Netherlands Act of 1954. His plan was to grant Suriname (which had become an independent state in 1975) dominion status. Under this status, the Netherlands government in Den Haag would have direct control over foreign policy, matters relating to the judiciary and defense policy. This group felt that that Mr. Bouterse and his political followers stood in their way because of their strong commitment to Surinamese nationalism and their abhorrence of Dutch colonial rule. They were scared by the growth in awareness that Suriname as a nation could chart its own path without interference and guidance from the Dutch. In order to bring about these plans for a new status for Suriname the group felt it was necessary to destroy Mr. Bouterse as a reputable political force. So this Dutch group planned to create a scenario in which Mr. Bouterse was to be charged with cocaine trafficking. Minister Bailin set up a special intelligence unit named COPA. This was an acronym for Colombia/Suriname. A team of 34 persons who were supposedly specialists in fighting drug trafficking was given its own budget and reported directly to the Minister. This groups assignment was to produce evidence that Mr. Bouterse was the leader of a drug trafficking organization sending drugs from South America to Europe. They wanted to show that he was directly involved in a number of separate illegal drug shipments. They would also seek to get evidence that he was guilty of money laundering. The first tactic of this special unit was to create a sting operation that was supposed to catch Mr. Bouterse red-handed. They approached several local drug dealers and asked them to do business with Mr. Bouterse. In exchange for their co-operation, the authorities would allow these Drug barons to transport safely certain agreed levels of illegal drugs to the Netherlands. This nefarious scheme became known publicly when a person identified as Inder was arrested because he brought in an amount of illegal drugs beyond what he was allowed. The Dutch court in Den Haag severely reprimanded the Public Prosecutor for this type of inducement.
1| Page

The Dutch Vendetta Against President Bouterse

At this point, the COPA team gave up this program to arrange a sting as Mr. Bouterse had shown that he would not respond to these so-called deals. COPAs new approach that began in 1995 was to spread rumors that Mr. Bouterse had large sums of money hidden away in several countries. The Public prosecution identified 12 countries ranging as far afield as Israel and Australia. A Dutch Investigation team assisted by local narcotics agents simultaneously visited these 12 countries. They raided the homes and offices of friends and people who had had some form of contact with Mr. Bouterse. Although these investigators made thorough searches of safes, cabinets and of the documents in them, they found nothing to incriminate Mr. Bouterse. This was yet another public Prosecution fiasco. At this point Attorney-General Van Leeuwers thought that the only way to build a case was to get sworn testimony from associates of Mr. Bouterse. After one of these persons was lured to the Netherlands seven anonymous witness gave statements. 1997-1999The Case that Finally Obtained a Conviction The Public Prosecution initially charged Mr. Bouterse with six indictments. They supported their charges with the statements of the seven witnesses. Mr. Moskovitch, Mr. Bouterses lawyer moved that the case be tried in another court. This was rejected. Towards the end of the proceedings something quite unusual occurred. Another charge of illegally transporting 474 kilos of cocaine from Suriname to the Dutch port of Stellendam was suddenly added. Previously a Belgian, Patrick van Loon had been convicted of this crime in the Netherlands court. He had been sentenced to a four-year term of imprisonment. When he appealed his sentence, he was astonished to find that instead of a reduction his sentenced had been doubled to eight years. The Public Prosecution then arranged for Mr. van Loon to testify that Mr. Bouterse had been his accomplice in this crime. In return for this testimony, Mr. van Loon was apparently promised a reduction in his sentence. Following the sentencing on the first six charges Mr. Bouterses lawyer lodged a strong appeal. The Court of Appeal took barely half an hour before agreeing with the submission that the testimonies of the seven anonymous witnesses were unreliable and therefore unacceptable. There was no valid case against Mr. Bouterse on these charges. The COPA team had suffered a severe setback. After six years and the spending of considerable sums of money, they had been unable to make these charges believable in a court. The Court, however, inexplicably accepted the testimony of Mr. van Loon as sufficient proof on one charge as it would be detailed as shown.

2| Page

The Dutch Vendetta Against President Bouterse

A normal person would have several questions about this decision. Why did the court of appeal not take into account the following? Why was it that the testimony of one person of questionable character sufficient proof to convict in a case like this? Why did this witness not mention Mr. Bouterses name in the original case and the subsequent appeal? Why do we find it difficult to reconcile Mr. van Loon testimony with his training and criminal experience? In his testimony, Mr. van Loon said that he had never spoken to Mr. Bouterse face to face. When questioned by a lawyer in Suriname Mr. van Loon was unable to recognize Mr. Bouterses voice. Despite all these questions that a normal person would raise the learned Appeal Court rejected all arguments and upheld the original decision and sentence. Since the decision in this case the law regarding Criminal Court procedure has changed in the Netherlands. Article 360 paragraph 2 of the Netherlands Code of Criminal procedure now states that the testimony of a sole witness cannot be used as sufficient reason for the conviction of a suspect. Failed Attempts to Reverse the Conviction In October 2001, Mr. Bouterses lawyer made a number of submissions against the original verdict. All were rejected by the court. When his lawyer turned up one day late to argue an appeal before the European Court in Strasbourg Mr. Bouterse started to question his lawyers sincerity and effectiveness. He, however, allowed him to submit arguments for a re-opening on the case. The argument for a review was based on the discovery of new evidence relating to the matter. A person, referred to as Marcel G., was arrested in St. Lucia and extradited to the Netherlands for alleged involvement in the Stellendam case. Marcel G. told police authorities that his only partner in his criminal activities was Patrick van Loon. He said that he did not know Mr. Bouterse and had never had any interactions or transactions with him. He believed that van Loon had made up the whole story of Mr. Bouterses involvement so that he could get his sentence reduced. The eminent criminal lawyer, Mr. Gerald Sprong, who was Marcel Gs lawyer, said in an interview in De Volkskrant (one of the major newspapers in the Netherlands) that the Supreme Judge should order the process to set aside the verdict against Mr. Bouterse. It is surprising that Mr. Sprong who is Surinamese is an outspoken political opponent of Mr. Bouterse should be so frank in his views. Despite the argument related to the detailed testimony of Marcel G the Supreme Court on March 4 2003 rejected the request by Bouterses lawyer for a formal review of the case. In 2005, another interesting twist in this case became public. This was the revelation of the
3| Page

The Dutch Vendetta Against President Bouterse

details of an investigation by the Belgian Police who worked in close co-operation with its Ministry of Justice. They had been doing a thorough investigation into the drug related activities of Mr. van Loon since 1992. They were collecting information to prove that Mr. Loon was a significant drug lord in the region. In their report, the Belgian Prosecutor categorically stated that they had found no evidence to show that Mr. Bouterse was involved in any way with the Stellendam case. He concluded that statements made by Van Loon in his appeals were pure fabrications. In addition the report quoted UK DEA (Drug Enforcement Agency) records that proved that Van Loon was lying about the dates and places he said he had met Bouterse in Paramaribo. According to their surveillance reports at those times, he was in Southampton in the UK. This shocking revelation by the Belgian authorities together with Marcel Gs statements were used as arguments by Mr. Weski, Mr. Bouterses new lawyer, for yet another request to the Appeal Court to re-open the case.. Most of our readers would now conclude that these arguments would convince the Appeal Court judges that Van Loon was unreliable as a witness. Also they would be entitled to think that the UK DEAs information would be conclusive evidence that Van Loon never met Bouterse on the dates he said he had. On Jan 31 2006, however, the Supreme Court dismissed Mr. Weskis request for a review. The reasons given to support this decision were vague and very legalistic. As this article is being written, Mr. Weski is yet again seeking a review. One hopes that justice will finally prevail and Mr. Bouterse will be vindicated in court. He has already been absolved in the court of public opinion in Suriname with the massive electoral victory of his MEGA combination group of parties in May 2010. He has also been elected by more than two thirds of the representatives in the National Assembly. This is the highest vote every received by a Surinamese Presidential candidate so far. The Surinamese people also hopes that the Appeal Court will honor the spirit of the new Netherlands Criminal court procedures that are now in accord with European court procedures. Many Surinamese are irritated when foreign journalists routinely and casually add the phrase convicted drug trafficker before any reference they make to Mr. Bouterse. It is a reminder to them of the power that the former colonial power still has in manipulating peoples minds. The recent admission by former Prime Minister Lubbers that the Dutch with US assistance had a detailed plan to invade Suriname in 1986 is further proof that there are forces in the Netherlands who will stop at nothing to prevent Suriname fully acting as an Independent country.

4| Page

The Dutch Vendetta Against President Bouterse

5| Page