The Brussels public prosecutor’s office faced with the Anderlecht CPAS case: premature classification in the face of persistent suspicions of structural dysfunctions
The announcement of a request to dismiss the case against the Anderlecht CPAS arouses deep incomprehension given the seriousness of the facts denounced for several years, both by the investigative media and by numerous users, social workers, lawyers and institutional observers.
The successive revelations of the Pano program had nevertheless highlighted alarming mechanisms for managing social assistance, revealing possible administrative irregularities, favoritism practices, as well as a worrying weakening of internal control mechanisms.
In this context, the decision of the Federal Minister of Social Integration, Anneleen Van Bossuyt, to become a civil party in order to obtain additional investigative duties appears not only legitimate, but necessary in the best interest of public transparency and the credibility of the social State.
I. Dysfunctions denounced in a recurring and convergent manner
The acts alleged against the Anderlecht CPAS clearly do not relate to isolated incidents or simple one-off administrative errors.
The testimonies collected over the years describe on the contrary:
- aid granted without sufficient verification;
- procedures applied arbitrarily;
- excessive delays in processing files;
- disparities in treatment between beneficiaries;
- insufficiently reasoned decisions;
- as well as a general climate of disorganization and administrative opacity.
To this were added the more recent revelations concerning the Foyer anderlechtois and the suspicions of political patronage publicly mentioned in a new report by Pano.
The accumulation of these convergent elements makes it particularly difficult to argue that no further in-depth investigation is necessary.
II. A criminal investigation whose shortcomings seriously raise questions
The minister’s public statements are particularly significant when she asserts that several essential investigative duties were not carried out and that certain key people were not even heard.
Such an affirmation, emanating from the political authority competent in matters of social integration, has major institutional significance.
Indeed, when there are suspicions relating to the use of public funds, the principle of good administration requires an effective, complete and impartial search for the truth.
A serious investigation required in particular:
- the exhaustive hearing of the administrative and political officials concerned;
- analysis of internal decision-making circuits;
- verification of aid granting procedures;
- examination of possible external interventions;
- as well as the in-depth audit of contentious files.
Therefore, invoking a lack of evidence even though certain decisive investigations have not been carried out appears legally and logically problematic.
A classification can only reasonably take place after exhaustion of the duties useful for the manifestation of the truth.
III. A worrying attack on trust in social institutions
This case today goes beyond just the criminal issue.
It directly affects citizens’ trust in social institutions and in the equal treatment of beneficiaries of public services.
Many litigants have long reported particularly worrying experiences within the Anderlecht CPAS:
- lack of clear answers;
- difficulties in accessing rights;
- administrative inconsistencies;
- practices perceived as discriminatory;
- conflicting decisions;
- and feeling of institutional arbitrariness.
When an organization responsible for protecting the most vulnerable people itself becomes the subject of persistent suspicions of structural dysfunction, the public response must be exemplary.
Silence or the premature abandonment of prosecutions would, on the contrary, risk fueling a feeling of impunity and distrust of institutions.
IV. The Minister’s decision: a courageous step in the service of the public interest
In this context, Anneleen Van Bossuyt’s decision to relaunch the investigation by filing a civil party must be welcomed with seriousness and responsibility.
This initiative reflects the desire not to allow gray areas to remain in an issue directly affecting the management of public funds and the credibility of the Belgian social assistance system.
This is not a question of calling into question the principle of independence of justice, but on the contrary a perfectly legitimate use of procedural mechanisms making it possible to obtain additional investigations when an investigation appears incomplete.
In a rule of law, transparency, accountability and effective control of public institutions do not constitute political options: they represent fundamental democratic requirements.
All in all, the Anderlecht CPAS file reveals a deep crisis of institutional confidence whose implications go far beyond the local framework.
Faced with persistent suspicions of administrative dysfunction, favoritism and mismanagement of public funds, a dismissal of the case following a potentially incomplete investigation would inevitably have left a feeling of incompleteness and impunity.
The decision of Minister Anneleen Van Bossuyt to become a civil party in order to demand additional investigative duties therefore appears to be an approach that is both prudent, responsible and consistent with the public interest.
Because when it comes to the integrity of social institutions, the truth cannot be approximate, and public trust cannot be satisfied with incomplete investigations.
Fiat justitia, ruat caelum: let justice be done, even if the sky should fall.