The Dutch Vendetta against President Bouterse

Most readers of this article are aware that the current President of Suriname Desire Delano Bouterse was convicted in absentia in 2001 of drug trafficking and sentenced 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 to Dutch colonial rule. They were scared by the growth of awareness that Suriname as a nation could chart its own path without interference and guidance from the Dutch.

In order to bring 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 group’s 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 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 which 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 these drug barons would be allowed to safely transport certain agreed levels of illegal drugs to the Netherlands.

This nefarious scheme came to light publicly when a person identified as ‘Inder’ was arrested.He brought in an amount of illegal drugs beyond what he as ‘allowed’. The Dutch court in Den Haag severely reprimanded the Public Prosecutor for this type of inducement.

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.

COPA’s new approach which 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 which could be used as testimony.

1997-1999—The 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. Bouterse’s 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. Boutersehad been

his accomplice in this crime. In return for this testimony Mr. van Loon was promised a reduction

 in his sentence.

Following the sentencing on the first six charges Mr. Bouterse’s lawyer lodged an 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’.

A normal person would have several questions about this decision. Why did the court of appeal not take into account the following:

That the testimony of one person of questionable character was sufficient proof to convict in a case like this.

This witness not mention Mr. Bouterse’s name in the original case and the subsequent appeal. It is difficult to reconcile Mr. van Loon’s 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. Bouterse’s 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. Bouterse’s 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 lawyer’s 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., had been arrested in St. Lucia and extradited to the Netherlands for alleged involvement in the Stellendam case.

 In 2002 Bouterse and his lawyer began legal proceedings to have his case reopened saying new evidence had been brought to light. Bouterse's defense lawyer claimed that Van Loon's testimony was only made after securing a suspicious, nontransparent deal with the Dutch Public Prosecutor's Office to receive a reduced sentence for his involvement in another narcotics case. Bouterse's defense also claimed that Van Loon's testimony contradicted statements he made in other drug-related investigations, but on 4 March 2003 the High Court turned down Bouterse's request to reopen his case.

On 25 July 2005 Bouterse and his Dutch lawyer, Inez Weski, submitted a second formal request to reopen the case claiming that the public prosecutor's office failed to present all available information to the court and had it done so, the courts might have ruled differently. Weski also submitted that she had obtained new information from an interview with the pilot of the ship that ferried the cocaine in the Stellendam case.

According to Weski, Van Loon told the pilot that he planned to incriminate Bouterse after securing a deal with public prosecutors. Weski also asked the High Court why an alleged accomplice of Bouterse was not prosecuted if the evidence against Bouterse was been so solid.

The High Court struck down this last appeal on January 31 saying the defense's arguments were groundless and were unlikely to lead to a different verdict were the case to be reconsidered.

On January 31,2006 the Dutch High Court rejected a request by Desi Bouterse to reopen the case surrounding his 1999 conviction for narcotics trafficking. The decision appears to end Bouterse's long quest to have his conviction overturned.