Questions & Answers about Ze beschuldigt hem, maar wil het erover hebben.
Why do we need both het and erover in this sentence?
The Dutch expression for "to talk about [something]" is het hebben over [iets]. The het is a fixed, dummy pronoun in this idiom. When you replace the specific topic with "it" (to say "talk about it"), the preposition over combines with "it" to form erover. Because the idiom strictly requires that dummy het, you must use both: het erover hebben (literally "to have it about it").
Why is there no subject after the word maar?
Just like in English, Dutch allows you to drop the subject in the second half of a sentence joined by en, maar, or of if the subject remains exactly the same. The pronoun ze is implied before wil.
Why does hebben go at the very end of the sentence here?
The conjunction maar starts a new main clause with regular word order. The implied subject ze is in position one, making the modal verb wil the finite verb in position two. Modal verbs push the main infinitive verb, which is hebben in this idiom, to the very end of the clause.
If I wanted to say "She accuses him of it", what er-word would I use?