Fernandes Pedra requests new judge: double-fatality case suspended again

ORANJESTAD — What was supposed to be the first full hearing in the criminal case against Chania Fernandes Pedra, accused in connection with the fatal accident that claimed two lives in January this year, ended Wednesday afternoon with an unexpected twist. After a hearing marked by heated discussions, several interruptions and the eventual start of substantive proceedings, the defendant submitted a formal request to replace the judge. The request, known in Dutch legal terminology as a wrakingsverzoek (a motion for judicial recusal), forced the judge to immediately suspend the proceedings. Three other judges must now decide whether the current judge can continue hearing the case or whether another judge must take over. The case has been adjourned until November 18 at 1:30 p.m., while the request to replace the judge will be heard on Friday, November 6, at 10:00 a.m.

JUDGE DECIDES TO PROCEED WITHOUT A LAWYER

Wednesday's hearing began with a lengthy discussion about the fact that Fernandes Pedra still has no lawyer to defend her, despite several attempts in recent months to secure legal representation. The judge provided an extensive account of the court's efforts to find an attorney, both in Aruba and Curaçao. He recalled that the defendant initially had several lawyers paid for by her family, but that they subsequently withdrew from the case. There was also a dispute concerning the admission of a lawyer from the Netherlands, while other attorneys identified by the court either declined to take the case under the financial conditions offered or were unable to reach an agreement with the defendant. The latest attempt failed following a conversation between Fernandes Pedra and another lawyer from Curaçao. According to the defendant, the attorney treated her in a manner she considered disrespectful, specifically describing his behavior as "rude" (brutaal), particularly regarding statements her family had allegedly made to the press about the prospective lawyer. The defendant maintained that she could not accept representation by an attorney in whom she had no confidence.

INTERESTS OF THE FAMILIES ALSO MATTER

The public prosecutor, speaking in a somewhat irritated tone, acknowledged that a defendant's right to legal assistance is fundamental, but argued that this right must be weighed against the interests of the other parties involved. The prosecutor emphasized that the case has been pending for almost ten months and that the families of the two victims have repeatedly endured the emotional burden of attending court hearings without the case reaching a conclusion. According to the Public Prosecution Service, after five hearings and numerous attempts to arrange legal representation, the time had come for the proceedings to continue. The legal representative of one of the affected families also expressed concern about the repeated delays and their impact on the family's grieving process. Following a recess to consider the different positions, the judge announced, with evident concern, that the case would proceed without a defense attorney. He emphasized that this was far from ideal, but that the court saw no concrete prospect of securing legal representation in the near future.

DEFENDANT ATTEMPTS TO LEAVE COURTROOM

The decision triggered an emotional reaction from Fernandes Pedra, who stated that she did not feel capable of defending herself without legal assistance. The defendant suddenly stood up in tears and attempted to leave the courtroom, but security personnel stopped her and indicated that she could not simply walk out. An exchange followed between the judge and the defendant regarding her right to remain present or leave the hearing. The judge explained that she was not obliged to stay, but that the proceedings could continue in her absence. After further exchanges and several interruptions, the court finally began examining the substance of the case.

FOOTAGE OF THE ACCIDENT SHOWN

During the hearing, the judge presented an account of the January 4, 2026 accident, based on witness statements, police investigations and other evidence contained in the case file. According to the information presented, a vehicle crossed the Renaissance bridge at an extremely high speed while a group of people was crossing the road. The judge recounted the statement of a police officer who witnessed the accident and described how the vehicle struck the group, resulting in two deaths. Information was also presented about the technical investigation, the positions of the victims following the impact and suspicions that the defendant had been under the influence of alcohol. The account was extremely detailed, causing visible distress among relatives of the victims in the courtroom. Graphic descriptions of how the mother was found lying on the ground, with a severed foot and exposed bone, along with other disturbing details, prompted some family members to leave the courtroom rather than listen any further. Security camera footage forming part of the investigation was also shown during the hearing. The judge warned those present that some of the images were disturbing.

THE CHARGES

The prosecutor read out a total of five charges against Fernandes Pedra, including manslaughter, attempted manslaughter, leaving the scene of an accident, driving under the influence of alcohol and driving without a valid driver's license. These charges must still be examined by the court and do not establish the defendant's guilt.

UNEXPECTED REQUEST TO REPLACE JUDGE

Just as the substantive hearing was progressing and those present believed the case could finally be heard, a court staff member unexpectedly handed the judge a document signed by Fernandes Pedra. The document was a so-called wrakingsverzoek: a formal request to remove the current judge from the case. The central argument behind the request concerns the judge's decision to continue the proceedings without the defendant having a lawyer. Fernandes Pedra questions whether the judge can continue handling her case under those circumstances. When the judge asked the defendant why she wanted him replaced, she exercised her right to remain silent. The judge then explained that he could not personally decide on a request for his own removal. That decision falls to a wrakingskamer, a panel of three other judges who will examine the request. Consequently, the judge indicated that, understandably, he could no longer make substantive decisions in the case while the request remained pending. The judicial recusal panel will hear the request on Friday morning, November 6, at 10:00 a.m., while the criminal proceedings are scheduled to resume on Wednesday, November 18, at 1:30 p.m. Friday's decision will determine whether the same judge can continue presiding over the case or whether another judge must take over. Thus, after almost ten months of proceedings, several hearings and numerous attempts to resolve the issue of legal representation, a criminal case that has deeply shaken Aruba faces yet another obstacle. The question now is not only when the case can finally be heard in full, but also which judge will ultimately preside over the proceedings against Fernandes Pedra.