Two key architects of the Netherlands' pandemic response faced the parliamentary corona inquiry on Wednesday, offering starkly different portraits of the decision to impose a nationwide curfew in early 2021.

Grapperhaus recalls 'profound reluctance'

Ferd Grapperhaus, the CDA minister who signed the curfew order, told the committee he initially resisted the measure with what he called 'profound reluctance.'

“That came down to my signature, and I didn't feel like it.”

He said he made clear in September and October 2020 that 'we are not going to do this,' arguing the cabinet had not yet exhausted less severe options. When the OMT first advised considering a curfew, he found the justification 'weak and unconvincing.' He later insisted on a new, stronger advisory before finally signing after the second virus wave struck.

The committee, however, pressed Grapperhaus on why his contemporaneous statements did not reflect such strong opposition. Member Songül Mutluer noted that D66 minister Kajsa Ollongren had expressed far clearer criticism in official records, while Grapperhaus's own objections remained diffuse.

“The theatrical outbursts, fierce pushback, shunting of responsibility, and selective memory loss: Grapperhaus showed he knows how testifying under oath works.”

Van Dissel admits herd immunity 'fuss' is his fault

In his second appearance, Jaap van Dissel adopted a more reflective tone than his earlier professorial stance. He took personal responsibility for the 2020 controversy over 'herd immunity' phrasing.

“That whole fuss about herd immunity is my fault.”

He said he should have insisted on a clearer timeline and emphasised the benefits (people who recovered were likely less ill and less infectious) instead of letting the prime minister's speech sound like the virus should simply circulate.

Van Dissel also addressed his controversial position on face masks. The Safety Board had concluded that his public doubts undermined government policy. He called that conclusion 'a slip-up,' arguing his role was to offer independent scientific advice, and that it was 'painful' to be branded undermining when his stance became politically inconvenient.

The curfew's tangled legal basis

A central tension emerged over who bore responsibility for the curfew's legal foundation. Grapperhaus disclosed he made a rare personal call to Van Dissel seeking a 'sharp, clear and unambiguous' OMT opinion to justify the measure. Van Dissel said he did not recall the call, and insisted the OMT's role stopped at suggesting measures.

“I did not spend a single second on the legal basis of the curfew. The further balancing is for the politicians.”

Grapperhaus, however, maintained that the revised advice showing the virus's reproduction number would drop by 8 to 13 percent was finally 'sufficient justification' for his signature.

A 'spaghetti mess' of rules

Van Dissel endorsed Amsterdam mayor Femke Halsema's earlier criticism that the rules became incomprehensible, calling the accumulation of COVID measures a 

“spaghetti mess”

. He explained that after the first wave, the OMT was inundated with requests to advise on everything from nightclub access to event passes, which mixed infection control with political concessions.

“In the first wave you could do hardcore infection control, but after that all kinds of sectoral interests came into play.”

He said he kept emphasising basic rules like staying home when sick, but 'there was less and less appetite for that.'

Unanswered questions and tears

The nine-hour Grapperhaus hearing repeatedly saw the former minister reach for tissues. He acknowledged the curfew had burdened fundamental rights and said he agonised over enforcement challenges. Yet he declined to name fellow ministers who pushed for the measure, telling Mutluer

“I am not going to reconstruct that here under oath before you”

. He maintained the curfew was ultimately 'the right decision' and noted police worked to pursue those who threatened officials during the pandemic.