A lost passer-by or a terrorist?
The presence of an Arabic-speaking man appears to have been the reason for the closure of the Wijnhaven building from 13 to 15 October 2023, as revealed in documents released by the university following a request filed under the Open Government Act (WOO request) by a student. Previously, the university had only stated that the closure was necessary due to a ‘heightened security risk’.
Now, the WOO documents show that the presence of the man, who briefly walked through the faculty building on the afternoon of 12 October, caused great commotion among the university’s security staff and security department.
Security guards follow the man and take photographs of him as he walks around the Wijnhaven building while video calling for a short time, before heading to the IND office on Turfmarkt to meet an acquaintance. The Security Department takes the presence of the unknown man very seriously. So seriously, in fact, that in addition to the police, they also contact the General Intelligence and Security Service (AIVD) and the Netherlands Defence Intelligence and Security Service (MIVD) about the incident.
COINCIDENCE
The documents, of which some passages have been redacted, make no mention of any reaction from the two intelligence services. However, a police investigation concludes that the man in question had demonstrably been on his way to an appointment at the IND office on Turfmarkt.
He had walked into the Wijnhaven building because he thought it was a shopping centre, while coincidentally being on a call at the same time. The police state that, as far as they are concerned, this concludes the matter.
An (anonymous) university staff member clearly sees things differently. In a Signal message, this person describes the police’s explanation as ‘a load of bollocks’. They decide to inform the AIVD and MIVD once again.
‘I think they have already flagged these gentlemen... the services can't be that naive’, the person writes. ‘I’m not at ease about it, but at least it’s in the hands of professionals now.’ The WOO documents (or the visible excerpts, at least) contain no further explanation as to why the staff member believed the police’s conclusion was incorrect, nor do they show how the intelligence services responded.
On 19 October, unrest flares up again. Security spots another person walking around the building who they consider to be suspicious. Security footage of the man is circulated by e-mail. ‘I’m sharing footage of these incidents internally with several experts in security training and intelligence’, a staff member writes in an e-mail. ‘I’m also having the footage profiled by certified profilers. What are we seeing here? Is this just odd or also suspicious? Is it just unusual, or also threatening?
‘STATE ACTOR’
The footage leads to intense speculation. The Security Department suspects that the men are scouts for a terrorist attack. ‘Until a police investigation proves that my people and I are mistaken, we will remain alert to the possibility that a major (state?) actor is systematically conducting reconnaissance. I consider it conceivable that reconnaissance is being conducted for attacks, because if you want to do that properly, you need good intelligence, gathered over a long period of time.’
This assumption recurs multiple times throughout the documents. ‘My concern is that reconnaissance is being conducted for the purpose of carrying out attacks’, ‘Something is brewing’, and ‘This is part of something bigger’, are statements found in various emails and messages, without any accompanying facts, evidence, or specific assessment from intelligence services.
In a Signal message, a staff member warns the police for ‘AZC covers’, possibly referring to terrorists hiding in asylum seekers’ centres (AZCs).
Unlike the first visitor, the identity of the second person is not ascertained. For the Security Department staff member, this is the decisive reason to ramp up security. ‘Now that the second case has not led to identification (...) we are going to further tighten our measures. As of today, you can only enter the campus with a card and/or a good story. We are implementing this in all buildings in The Hague and also in some buildings in Leiden.’
This marks the start of heightened security measures that are still in place today – from LU-Card and bag checks to plain-clothes security guards taking photos of students – and which have repeatedly sparked protests from students and staff. Despite these protests, the measures remain in place; for example, the new Spui building will be equipped with entrance gates.
‘For us, this is a huge step that we take with a heavy heart’, writes the person responsible for the decision. ‘A university should be open, but circumstances are forcing us to impose restrictions.’
Mare asked the university administration whether the Arabic-speaking man had been the reason for the closure of the Wijnhaven building in October 2023.
Spokesperson Caroline van Overbeeke confirms this: ‘The reason for the temporary closure back then was a suspicious situation at this location: a person had entered the building who, according to the information available to us at the time, was behaving suspiciously. According to the information shared with our crisis team on 12 October, and following consultation with the police, this was reason enough to close the building as a precaution’. Earlier statements by the police in response to questions from Mare show that the Wijnhaven building was closed based on the university’s ‘own assessment’.
Regarding the extent to which unfounded assumptions that ‘something bigger’ is going on have shaped university security policy since October 2023, the university says that ‘there have been several signals around various university buildings, both before and after that time, that required attention. Partly on this basis, the decision was made to introduce measures such as LU-Card checks. The safety of staff, students and visitors is paramount.’ Whether security will be scaled back is not yet clear: ‘A new risk analysis of the security situation in Wijnhaven is currently being made. Lessons learned from evaluations are incorporated into our Security Framework.’
Mare asked whether the response to the alleged threat has also been evaluated, and whether a potential racist bias among security guards and the Security Department, who immediately assume terrorist plots when they see an Arabic-speaking man, has been considered. Van Overbeeke replies: ‘Naturally, we evaluate our security policy (and this case) – the information on which we base our decisions is always carefully weighed and analysed. For security reasons, however, we can’t elaborate on the details.’
The university does not want to comment further on the description ‘a load of bollocks’ or the meaning of the so-called ‘AZC covers’. ‘We consider that to be a private opinion of the person concerned.’
The WOO documents were made public following an appeal of an earlier decision. On its website, the university states that ‘not all the documents relating to this request were passed to the Executive Board’ because ‘a former member of staff did not provide all the relevant documents relating to this request at that time’.
The released documents show that one or more university staff members are very active in passing information to the police, even if it appears to have little to do with the university.
For example, an anonymous staff member shared a call from the Justice Now action group about a demonstration at the Thales defence company in Delft. Frequent messages were also sent to the police about demonstrations at the Lower House building or The Hague Central Station, organised by various, often pro-Palestinian groups that had little or no connection with the university.
The documents do not explain why Leiden University security staff would need to be involved in this. The spokesperson comments: ‘During this period, it was common for security departments of Dutch universities and the police to share information with each other. This was done in order to analyse possible national trends and assess their potential impact on universities.’