25 years later, new evidence raises questions in 2000 Enschede fireworks disaster

Exactly 25 years after the 2000 Enschede fireworks disaster, new information has surfaced that may identify who caused the fire that led to the deadly explosions.

The blast at SE Fireworks killed 23 people, injured nearly 1,000, and destroyed the Roombeek neighborhood. Now, documents and witness reports suggest that the investigation may have overlooked key individuals and possible motives, RTV Oost reports.

Two days after the explosion, a local officer reported a tip from a witness who said work had been done that afternoon on the SE Fireworks property. At least six people were present, all with direct ties to the company. One of them was a freelance pyrotechnician who regularly worked for SE Fireworks alongside his brother.

Although this tip was entered into the case file, the man was never questioned about the people present or the nature of the work. Former SE Fireworks director Rudi Bakker has long claimed that police failed to investigate this properly.

Documents reveal that the municipality of Enschede had plans for high-end redevelopment in the area and made a 1.5 million guilder offer for the SE Fireworks property just one day before the explosion. As the leaseholder, Bakker had legal rights to the land. However, he was unaware of the offer at the time, and it was only years later, through a public records request, that Bakker discovered the municipality’s offer.

After learning about it, Bakker suggested that the withheld information could point to a financial motive for deliberately provoking the explosion.

One theory suggests someone intentionally set off fireworks to trigger complaints and cost Bakker his license, clearing the way for a land transfer to previous owner Harm Smallenbroek. Bakker’s team says the goal may not have been arson, but that stray projectiles accidentally caused a fire.

Photos from the scene show a launch tube near a work bunker—accessible only to insiders. All six people present had the required access. Several have time gaps in their alibis of up to 90 minutes, which police did not investigate because it fell outside the original scope of the inquiry.

One of those present—later identified as Smallenbroek’s son—reportedly called from a nearby fish shop just after the fire started. The shop’s owners told police he said, “We were working at the bunkers.” He later confirmed making the call but said he couldn’t remember the conversation. He was released without further questioning.

In 2007, a new witness came forward claiming the same man had made a suspicious call around noon that day—three hours before the explosion—asking what to do if a fire broke out at SE Fireworks. The woman repeated her statement in 2022, but was dismissed by police as “unreliable.”

Investigators from the original “Tolteam” had strict instructions from prosecutors: find out who started the fire and review SE Fireworks’ permits. They had already arrested suspect André de Vries—known for his red sports shorts—who was later acquitted on appeal.

Bakker and his now-deceased business partner were convicted in 2003 for storing excessive and dangerous fireworks and served one-year prison terms. But Bakker continues to seek exoneration.

He is submitting a formal request to the Supreme Court to reopen the investigation. He argues that financial motives were never examined and points to University of Twente research showing that even lighter fireworks can cause mass explosions.

A spokesperson for Bakker stressed, “We firmly state that Smallenbroek is not responsible for the disaster and never intended it.”

Harm Smallenbroek, former owner of SE Fireworks, denies all claims. “This is all old news,” he said. He insists Bakker knew of the land sale talks, attended meetings, and will soon face legal action for slander. “He lies constantly and even involves the dead who cannot defend themselves. That is contemptuous.”

Smallenbroek confirmed that work took place on the day of the disaster—but says it was Bakker who was there. Bakker maintains he was not involved in the property negotiations and that they were conducted secretly between Smallenbroek and the city. He also insists he had a solid alibi for Saturday, May 13, 2000.