Tarwekamp: the six days between an arrest and a devastated street

A van carrying petrol and powerful fireworks. Two men arrested and subsequently released. Six days later, six people die in an explosion in The Hague. A reconstruction of an attack whose preparations had already come to police attention before the disaster.

Background report for EuroCrime — information current as of 8 November 2026. The criminal proceedings are ongoing; the court has not delivered a final judgment. Statements and allegations are identified as such below.

Saturday 7 December 2024, at around a quarter past six in the morning. An explosion destroys part of a residential block on the Tarwekamp in The Hague's Mariahoeve district. Homes collapse, fire breaks out and residents are trapped beneath the rubble. Six people do not survive. The devastation above a shop turns out to be connected to an attack that, according to the Dutch Public Prosecution Service (OM), targeted a bridal shop. The owner's former girlfriend is suspected of engaging others to set the shop on fire. ^[1]

But the story does not begin with that explosion. It begins earlier, in a car park in Oosterhout, where officers check a van during the night of 1 December. Inside, they find two men with petrol and powerful fireworks. The police intervene and arrest the men. Yet six days later comes the disaster which, prosecutors say, they had already intended to prepare or carry out on that earlier night. ^[2]

The night police find the van

It is Sunday 1 December, at around 2.15 a.m. Two men from Roosendaal are behaving suspiciously in a van in an Oosterhout car park. Officers check them and discover materials giving grounds to suspect preparations for arson. The men are taken into custody. Police seize the van, fuel, fireworks and their phones. ^[2]

A subsequent prosecution statement gives more details about the van's contents: fourteen jerrycans of petrol and six Cobra 6 firecrackers. Prosecutors also describe evidence of a reconnaissance visit to the Tarwekamp on the night of 27–28 November. The same statement refers to clothing, shoes and a specially purchased phone allegedly connected with the preparations. According to the OM, the men already planned to burn down the shop. They also planned to set fire to a car. This is the prosecution's reconstruction, which the court must ultimately assess. ^[3]

In hindsight, the arrest takes on particular significance. The men had already been checked and their supplies confiscated. A police intervention stood between the alleged plan and the eventual attack. That makes the events of 1 December one of the most troubling parts of the case.

Why were the men released?

According to the OM, the first arrest did not establish sufficiently clearly what the men intended to do. After questioning, they were released while examination of their phones continued. Their confiscated property was not returned. It would therefore be incorrect to say the police sent them away with the same van and petrol. Prosecutors say new supplies were collected for the later attack. ^[4]

That explanation does not remove the questions. What could already have been inferred from the circumstances? How quickly could the intended target have been identified? What information emerged only after the explosion? These questions require a precise reconstruction. The mere fact that two suspects were later arrested again does not prove police knew the full threat on 1 December. Equally, their release does not make the earlier discovery any less serious.

The distinction between what was known then and what became known afterwards is essential. The arrest and release are established facts. Concluding that this demonstrably provided an opportunity to prevent the disaster goes beyond what those facts alone establish.

A shop as the target, residents above

According to the reconstruction discussed on the first day of the trial, the original plan allegedly involved stealing wedding dresses. Moshtag B., the suspected organiser, said he wanted the dresses stolen and sold to recover money he had given his former girlfriend. According to his statement, the plan later changed to arson. He attributed a major role in that change to co-defendant Adil A. ^[5]

Who devised each step remains disputed. That question is distinct from the consequences of the actions: an attack on a shop in a building where people also lived. The gap between the alleged aim of financially harming a business owner and the danger to residents lies at the heart of the trial.

According to Omroep Brabant, the 4 November hearing also addressed discussions about the quantity of petrol before the attack. Messages discussed in court reportedly included warnings by Adil about the consequences for residents. Such messages matter because they may shed light on what those involved knew, foresaw and discussed beforehand. Their legal significance is for the court to determine. ^[6]

According to prosecutors, the plan continued after the first arrest

Reporting around the opening of the trial describes how fuel and powerful fireworks were obtained again after the earlier arrest. Police had confiscated the first supplies, but prosecutors say preparations then resumed. In the prosecution's account, the earlier intervention interrupted the plan without ultimately bringing it to an end. ^[7]

Moshtag B. was in London when the final explosion occurred. According to his statement, reported by ANP, his stay there was intended to provide himself with an alibi. His former girlfriend was also in London. While the suspected organiser was outside the Netherlands, the consequences of the arson unfolded in The Hague. He is accused of ordering that arson. ^[5]

That contrast recurs throughout the case: statements about damaging a shop, set against a residential building in which people's lives were endangered. The defendants may describe different intentions afterwards. The court must examine what their preparations and actions actually meant.

The morning the street changes

The learning review by the Netherlands Institute for Public Safety describes the first emergency call at 6.17 a.m. More calls follow about fire, smoke and explosions. The first fire crew encounters rubble, shattered glass and several fires in the street. Part of the building is gone. Within the first half-hour, four people are rescued on, beneath or near the collapsed homes. ^[8]

The emergency response develops into an operation lasting approximately sixty hours. Specialist rescue teams are deployed. Firefighting, searching for survivors and checking whether the remaining structure is safe enough must proceed alongside one another. Rescuers have to work urgently while accounting for the danger of further collapse. For families, every passing hour means continued uncertainty about who is safe and who will never return. ^[8]

Police later report that the sixth victim was found in the basement during the night of 8–9 December. On the afternoon of Monday 9 December, authorities announce that no further victims have been found in the continuing search. Establishing identities and informing relatives form a separate, painful part of the aftermath. Behind the death toll of six are six lives and several families. ^[9]

A child loses his family

On the second day of the trial, 5 November 2026, the court reads statements about the consequences. ANP recounts the story of a boy who was eight when the disaster happened. He survived; his father, mother and sister died. A police officer recorded his experiences. The boy heard his father calling for help and was eventually rescued by a firefighter. ^[10]

Other statements show how long the disaster continues to affect people. A woman describes losing her partner and raising their children without him. A survivor recounts spending days in a coma after her rescue. The bridal shop owner reports severe financial and psychological consequences. The case therefore concerns more than how a fire started. It also shows how one morning changed the lives of residents, business owners and families. ^[10]

The arrests after the explosion

Shortly before midnight on 9 December, three men are arrested. They include the two men from Roosendaal previously detained on 1 December. A fourth arrest follows on 11 December. The earlier discovery in Oosterhout thereby takes on a new significance within the wider investigation. ^[2]

Initially, strict communication restrictions apply: the suspects may contact only their lawyers. In January 2025, the OM announces that those restrictions have been lifted and that it has received 37 criminal complaints. The complainants include residents and bereaved relatives, as well as neighbours and businesses. The people affected extend far beyond those inside the collapsed section at the time of the explosion. ^[11]

Petrol quantities: different figures require care

In February 2025, the OM states that approximately two hundred litres of petrol had allegedly been used and poured over wedding dresses and inside the premises. That figure also appears in official information about the criminal proceedings. ^[12]

A reconstruction must distinguish three things: the fuel present during the first attempt, the amount later purchased or transported, and the amount actually poured in a particular place. These are different investigative questions. The amount purchased does not automatically establish the precise quantity that caused the explosion.

As the technical findings are being examined during the trial, it would be inappropriate to give a definitive independent calculation here. Quantity, the spread of vapour and the origin of the explosion must be assessed alongside the expert reports. A careful account cannot simply present a figure from an earlier report as a final finding by the court.

Why prosecutors also allege murder

In its May 2025 statement, the OM argues that the circumstances indicate conscious acceptance of a substantial risk that people would die. Prosecutors point to the use of a large quantity of fuel in a building containing homes, at a time when many residents would be at home and asleep. They also argue that the extended preparations are relevant to the question of premeditation. ^[13]

The accusation is therefore more serious than merely destroying a shop. In the OM's view, criminal responsibility for deaths can arise even when suspects say they did not intend to kill residents. The court decides whether the relevant legal requirements have been proved in this case. Defendants' statements about their intentions form part of that assessment, alongside messages, actions and forensic evidence. ^[13]

The trial is not over

The substantive trial began on 4 November 2026. Four men are on trial. Three face the most serious allegations, including murder or manslaughter of six people. Each defendant's precise involvement must be assessed separately. According to the published timetable, hearings continue through November and December, with judgment expected in January 2027; the schedule may change. As of 8 November 2026, no final judgment has been delivered. ^[14]

For bereaved relatives and survivors, the trial must answer questions unresolved since December 2024. Who initiated the plan? Who knew what? Who decided to continue? And what responsibility does each person involved bear for what happened above and around that shop?

The night of 1 December keeps returning in those questions. Two men had already been arrested. The petrol and fireworks had already been found and seized. Six days later, a residential block was devastated. That sequence makes Tarwekamp a case in which the preparations, earlier police intervention and eventual consequences are inseparably connected.