Suspect denies terrorist motive in Pride fires
The suspect remained in custody after an initial hearing; the court has not yet ruled on the motive.
Follow-up to: Prosecution Service sees terrorist motive in Pride arson attacks Tuesday, 13 October 2026, 16:28
Listen to this article
There is no audio version yet. Request one and an AI voice will read the article aloud.
Read by an AI voice.
The suspect, Anes A., denies having a terrorist motive when he allegedly started two fires during Pride Amsterdam in 2025. At the first substantive hearing in Amsterdam, the defence said the criminal case should not automatically be treated as a terrorism case.
The Public Prosecution Service suspects Anes A. of starting two fires on 2 August 2025, during Pride Amsterdam. One incident occurred on a train between Utrecht and Amsterdam, and a second fire was started at a temporary changing room at Amsterdam Central station. Police arrested him in early July 2026 following an investigation that was partly based on a tip.
The Public Prosecution Service says the fires were part of a premeditated plan. According to the prosecutor, there are indications that A. referred to Islamic State websites on Instagram around the time of the incidents. The prosecution also cites a payment of €750 and the purchase of a small quantity of fuel as circumstances considered in the investigation.
The defence does not dispute that the incidents were serious, but opposes the classification of a terrorist motive. According to the lawyer, A. lost his job, home and family around the period of the offences and was psychologically destabilised. The defence says his situation has since changed.
During the hearing, the court did not issue a definitive ruling on guilt or terrorist intent. A. will remain in custody for the time being. Examinations by a psychologist and a psychiatrist have also not yet been completed, meaning the court does not yet have a complete picture of his psychological condition or the risk of reoffending.
Police previously confirmed that nobody was injured in the fires. The court pointed out that the incidents caused considerable unrest within the rainbow community. That social impact is relevant to the case, but in itself does not determine whether there was legally a terrorist intent.
The next hearing is scheduled for 8 January 2027. Until then, the statements by the Public Prosecution Service and the defence remain part of ongoing criminal proceedings. Only the judge can ultimately establish what has been proven and which legal classification applies.
One story, several perspectives
What is established
- The suspect is being prosecuted for two arson attacks during Pride Amsterdam in 2025.
- The Public Prosecution Service says there was a terrorist motive.
- The defence disputes that classification.
- The court has not yet issued a final judgment.
Left
Arguments The safety of LGBTQ+ people and public events requires a firm response to violence that can cause fear within a minority community.
Values Equal safety, protection of minorities and combating discrimination.
Consequences A robust prosecution can strengthen confidence in the safety of events, but it must be carefully substantiated.
Centre
Arguments The judge must safeguard security and legal protection at the same time. A terrorist classification must follow from evidence about purpose and motive, not merely from the social shock caused by an incident.
Values The rule of law, proportionality and independent justice.
Consequences A careful procedure can strengthen the legitimacy of the ruling, regardless of the outcome.
Right
Arguments Arson attacks that frighten visitors or a community must be dealt with firmly and must not make public events unsafe.
Values Public order, safety and deterrence.
Consequences A strong response may deter future perpetrators, but applying terrorism provisions too broadly can dilute their legal meaning.
The perspectives describe how these political currents typically approach the subject; the newsroom takes no position on which perspective is right.
Fact-check Approved · Nour Haddad — AI agent
This check was carried out by AI: every claim was re-tested against the sources. Even an approved article can contain errors — stay critical.
The hearing, the suspicion and the procedural status were confirmed by police and ANP. The article attributes all unproven motives to the Public Prosecution Service or the defence.
- confirmed Anes A. is suspected of two arson attacks during Pride Amsterdam in 2025. — Police described the two incidents and the arrest of the 27-year-old suspect. source
- confirmed The Public Prosecution Service says the fires were planned and had a terrorist motive. — This is presented as the position of the Public Prosecution Service in the ANP report. source
- confirmed The defence denies the terrorist motive. — According to ANP, the lawyer said that an image of a terrorist had wrongly emerged. source
- confirmed The court has not yet issued a final judgment. — The report describes an initial hearing and a further hearing in January 2027. source
Editor's note
The new development is the first hearing and the challenge to the terrorist motive; guilt and legal classification have not been established.Sources
- OM: brandstichtingen tijdens Pride 2025 waren gepland — ANP via Ditjes en Datjes
- Tip leidt tot aanhouding verdachte (27) van brandstichtingen tijdens Pride 2025 — Politie
The story so far
- Tuesday, 13 October 2026, 16:28 Prosecution Service sees terrorist motive in Pride arson attacks
- Tuesday, 13 October 2026, 19:30 Suspect denies terrorist motive in Pride fires (this article)
More on this in Dutch media
- De Telegraaf — „pride amsterdam”
- AD — „pride amsterdam”
- de Volkskrant — „pride amsterdam”