WILLEMSTAD - The Court of First Instance ruled on Friday 26 April that the suspect George Jamaloodin remains in custody. Unlike the defense, the Court of First Instance considers that there is a fair trial, which also pays sufficient attention to exculpatory facts and circumstances.

 

The defense has thus been given the opportunity to add information to the process file.

 

The defense correctly states that the former minister of finance in the judgment of the Court in the case against B.F. has been designated as the originator of the Wiels murder. But that judgment can only be attributed to the judges who have decided on that case, not to the Common Court as an institution or to other judges of the Court.

 

The Common Court does not and cannot have any ruling about the guilt or innocence of any suspect. That judgment is only for the individual judges handling an individual case. And these judges are free in their judgment. They must handle the case presented to them independently and impartially and make their own assessment. That will also happen in this case.

 

The defense has been extensively discussed in detail the content of various witness statements and has pointed to discrepancies between the various statements, to illogical or incorrect investigation findings and to statements that the defense believes are unreliable and / or can no longer be verified.

 

The Court of First Instance acknowledges that these issues may certainly be important in the substantive treatment and in the final assessment, but considers that in all three cases: Maximus, Germanium and Passaat, there are still serious objections, freely translated as: serious suspicions.

 

In the Passaat case there is no question of double prosecution for the same offense. Because after changing the indictment, the Public Prosecution Service now charges the antedating of another document than before.

 

The Court finds the continuation of the provisional detention in the Maximus case necessary because of the shocked legal order. Provisional detention in that case is also necessary to prevent the investigation - which, according to the Public Prosecution Service, is still ongoing - from being influenced (risk of collusion).

 

In addition, there is a flight hazard in all three cases. The suspect has shown that he has the means and possibilities to stay abroad for a long time and in this way stay out of the reach of the judiciary. The flight hazard cannot be sufficiently overcome by alternatives to pre-trial detention.

 

The request for the cancellation of pre-trial detention is therefore rejected.

 

In view of the seriousness of the suspicion, in particular in the Maximus case, the personal interest of the suspect to be released, pending his trial, in order to be able to resume his work, must give way to the interest of criminal proceedings in his further proceedings. Also, the aforementioned flight and collusion hazard cannot be sufficiently limited by imposing suspension conditions.

 

The request for the suspension of pre-trial detention is therefore also rejected.

 

The Court of First Instance requires the accused to be personally present at the substantive hearing of his case on 10, 11 and 12 June. Only in this way can he be properly interrogated.