Along with five students, Assistant Professor Harry Pettit has filed a complaint with the ombudsperson about their arrest last December. They want more clarity on the role of the security guards who identified them following the incidents of vandalism in Theatre Hall C. They also find it unjust that the University did not invite them to take part in the review of the events.

On 16 December, some ten activists briefly occupied Theatre Hall C at the Elinor Ostrom building. They barricaded the entrances, among other things by screwing iron strips to the entrance doors. The incident reportedly cost the University €30,000, partly because some of the doors were fireproof.

A reconstruction sent last month by the Executive Board (CvB) to the central participational bodies shows that the security guards managed to enter the room via the control room. The occupiers then left, following which the police were called in. The latter then stopped a scheduled bus near the Central Station, because security guards had reportedly seen some protesters boarding the bus.

Six arrests

Six people were arrested, including Pettit. The security guards had recognised five students as pro-Palestine demonstrators who had previously taken part in protests on campus. And they recognised Pettit as a Radboud University employee, the letter from the Executive Board states, although ‘they [did] not confirm that this person had been in the Theatre Hall’.

Nor was this the case, as Pettit was able to demonstrate: the Assistant Professor was on a train at the time of the incident. Despite this, the police detained him for 30 hours. ‘It was a shocking experience,’ says Pettit. ‘You suddenly discover how much power the police have.’

A month later, the police admitted that his arrest had been unjustified, and that his alibi was confirmed. The other five detainees were also not prosecuted, in their case for lack of evidence. A university spokesman at the time called it ‘regrettable’ that Pettit had been wrongly identified as a suspect.

No adjustment to the procedures

Nevertheless, the events provided ‘no justification for the University to adjust existing agreements or procedures,’ the Executive Board writes to the participational bodies. The conclusion of the review is that the security staff did their job ‘to the best of their ability’ and within their powers. ‘The police then did what was deemed advisable under the circumstances.’

Pettit still has questions about the course of events. Which is why he and the detained students have now put the case to the ombudsperson. ‘According to the Board, the security guards had told the police that I was absolutely not in the building. But the police told me we had been spotted by both security guards and surveillance cameras. Something isn’t aligning here. Otherwise, why would I have been arrested?’

He is also upset that the University did not speak to them before the review. ‘That would have seemed relevant to me.’

Confidentiality

In response to questions from Vox, ombudsperson Job van Luyken said he could not comment on the case as he was bound by confidentiality. However, he could say that ‘concerns have been shared with me before and also recently about the situation described in this article, including about the more recent demonstration, by the way. And those concerns have my attention.’