It was obvious from remarks made by the judges early on in the trial that at least one of the judges was biased against Wilders. Now there is clear proof of it: A rather spectacular turn of events
"The hate speech trial of the controversial far-right Dutch leader, Geert Wilders, collapsed in disarray at the last minute today when the panel of judges in the case were deemed to be biased. A retrial was ordered.
Wilders, who is enjoying soaring support at home and propping up a new minority anti-immigration government established last week, has been in the dock since earlier this month on five charges of inciting racial and religious hatred for his robust denunciations of Islam as fascist and demanding the Qur'an be banned.
During the trial he has been lionised as a modern-day Galileo as well as branded a "little Hitler". Today was the final scheduled day of the trial, with the verdict from the panel of three judges at Amsterdam district court due next week.
But in the past 48 hours it emerged that one of the appeal court judges who ordered Wilders to stand trial had dinner in May with a potential witness, a Dutch expert on Islam, and that the judge had sought to convince the professor of Arabic studies why Wilders had to be prosecuted.
Last night, Wilders, who has remained silent throughout the trial, tweeted that Dutch justice was like the mafia.
This morning, Bram Moszkowicz, Wilders's lawyer, asked to summon the witness and was refused. He formally protested that the judges were biased against the defendant, a complaint that was upheld by another judges' panel, which ordered a retrial with a new bench.