Willemstad/Philipsburg:---  The Centrale Bank van Curaçao en Sint Maarten (CBCS) today presents the results of the IMF’s Central Bank Transparency (CBT) Code Review. The CBT Review is an in-depth assessment designed to evaluate how openly and clearly the CBCS communicates and operates across its core responsibilities, including governance, policy development, daily operations, performance reporting, and engagement with government and stakeholders. The CBCS welcomes the recommendations received to further enhance its transparency and strengthen the CBCS’ disclosures and communication practices.
Last year the CBCS requested the CBT review, reflecting its longstanding commitment to strengthening transparency, accountability, and public trust. The review provided the CBCS with a valuable opportunity for institutional reflection. The process engaged a multidisciplinary team across several divisions of the CBCS and enabled a comprehensive assessment of the CBCS’ transparency practices, including how information is disclosed to the public. In addition, the IMF administered a digital survey and conducted in-person meetings in both Curaçao and Sint Maarten to complement the assessment with input from key stakeholders. Collectively, these elements supported the identification of areas for improvement and targeted enhancements to further strengthen transparency and accountability. As the IMF notes, transparency is an essential pillar for supporting an effective central bank and safeguarding institutional credibility.
The CBCS notes that the IMF recognizes the significant strides made in recent years to enhance openness, communication, and stakeholder engagement. In its review, the IMF highlighted substantial improvements in the CBCS’ communication practices, including more frequent publications, multilingual outreach, expanded use of digital channels, and clearer reporting on core functions. Stakeholders surveyed by the IMF also acknowledged notable progress, giving the CBCS favorable ratings for overall transparency and accessibility of information.
The IMF further commended the CBCS for its highly transparent monetary policy framework, including clear disclosure of objectives, instruments, and the rationale for the currency peg. The review also praised the CBCS’ publication of comprehensive analyses such as the Financial Stability Report, its well-defined approach to reserve management, and its consistent communication of supervisory policies, consumer protection measures, and AML/CFT guidelines.
The CBCS reviewed all recommendations and has already identified concrete actions to further enhance transparency. All actions arising from the CBT Review have been integrated into the CBCS’ Strategic Plan 2026–2028, ensuring sustained commitment in the coming years.
“This exercise reflects our firm belief that transparency is essential to maintaining trust and ensuring that the public keeps us accountable,” stated CBCS President Richard Doornbosch. “We welcome the IMF’s constructive guidance and will continue to build on the progress already made.”
The CBCS thanks the IMF Mission Team for their professional and effective guidance during the mission. The Board also extends its sincere appreciation to CBCS staff for their dedicated support throughout the review process, as well as to external stakeholders for their constructive engagement and willingness to collaborate.
The detailed Central Bank Transparency Code Review Report is available on our website: https://www.centralbank.cw/about-the-bank/governance-risk-and-compliance

Willemstad, March30, 2026
CENTRALE BANK VAN CURAÇAO EN SINT MAARTEN

PHILIPSBURG:--- In March 2026, a legal advisory prepared by Professor Arjen van Rijn was submitted to the Council of Ministers of Sint Maarten, addressing a critical constitutional issue: the role and limits of the Governor within the country’s governance system.

The advisory was prompted by a January 2026 incident involving administrative decision-making and subsequent actions that raised serious constitutional concerns. At its core, the document examines whether the Governor acted within his legal authority—or whether those actions risked undermining democratic governance.

Background: The Incident That Triggered the Advisory

The issue began with an incident on January 7, 2026, involving disciplinary action against a civil servant. The government imposed an immediate administrative measure, followed by a suspension decision that required formal approval by a national decree.

However, complications arose during the decision-making process:

• The Governor intervened in the Council of Ministers’ proceedings
• The Prime Minister and another minister were reportedly prevented from attending a meeting
• The Governor participated in deliberations with an advisory vote
• The Governor returned and delayed signing the decree, requesting further review

These actions led to confusion over authority and raised questions about whether constitutional boundaries had been crossed.

The Core Constitutional Question

The advisory focuses on a fundamental issue:

What are the legal limits of the Governor’s authority within Sint Maarten’s constitutional framework?

To answer this, the advisory examines the Governor’s dual role and the principle of ministerial responsibility.

The Dual Role of the Governor

The Governor of Sint Maarten operates in two distinct capacities:

1. Constitutional Head of Government (National Role)

In this role, the Governor:

• Represents the King within Sint Maarten
• Forms part of the government together with the ministers
• Acts formally as the head of the executive

However, crucially:

• The Governor has no independent governing authority
• All actions fall under ministerial responsibility
• Ministers—not the Governor—are politically accountable to Parliament

2. Representative of the Kingdom Government (Kingdom Role)

In this capacity, the Governor:

• Safeguards the interests of the Kingdom of the Netherlands
• Ensures compliance with Kingdom law
• May intervene if national decisions conflict with Kingdom interests

This role includes a key power:

• The ability to refuse to sign a decree and escalate it to the Kingdom government

A Fundamental Principle: No Independent Power

A central conclusion of the advisory is:

The Governor does not possess independent decision-making authority within the national government.

Instead, the Governor’s role is limited to:

• Being consulted
• Offering advice
• Providing warnings
• Encouraging reconsideration

But ultimately:

The ministers decide—and the Governor must follow.

This principle is rooted in parliamentary democracy: elected officials must hold power, not appointed representatives.

“No Third Way”: A Critical Doctrine

One of the most important legal conclusions in the advisory is the rejection of a so-called “third role” for the Governor.

The Governor can act only as:

1. Head of government (without independent power), OR
2. Kingdom representative (with escalation powers)

There is no middle ground where the Governor acts as an independent constitutional guardian with autonomous authority.

Allowing such a “third way” would:

• Undermine democratic accountability
• Blur lines of responsibility
• Concentrate unelected power in a non-political office

Historical Context: The Van der Meer Affair

The advisory draws on precedent, particularly the Van der Meer affair, which clarified that:

• The Governor may form opinions and engage in discussion
• But in case of disagreement, ministers have the final say
• The Governor must ultimately “sign at the dotted line”

This historical case reinforces the doctrine that the Governor’s authority is subordinate in national governance matters.

Assessment of the Governor’s Actions in the 2026 Case

The advisory concludes that the Governor exceeded his authority in several ways:

1. Interfering with Ministerial Participation

The Governor informed certain ministers that they could not attend a Council meeting.

• This is problematic because:
  • The Council of Ministers determines its own functioning
  • The Governor has no authority to exclude ministers

2. Participating Actively in Cabinet Deliberations

The Governor attended and engaged in discussions with an advisory vote.

• This is considered inappropriate because:
  • The Governor should remain above political decision-making
  • Active participation risks politicizing the office

3. Influencing Policy Direction

Decisions taken in meetings suggested a shift in policy direction influenced by the Governor.

• This undermines:
  • The political primacy of elected officials
  • The authority of the Prime Minister

Democratic Risks Identified

The advisory warns that such actions pose serious risks:

• Erosion of ministerial responsibility
• Weakening of democratic legitimacy
• Blurring of constitutional roles
• Potential constitutional crisis

A key insight:

The Governor is not democratically accountable, while ministers are. Therefore, the Governor must not take on a political role.

The Proper Use of Governor’s Powers

The advisory clarifies what the Governor should do in contentious situations:

1. Advise and warn ministers
2. Respect ministerial decision-making
3. If necessary, refuse to sign a decree
4. Immediately refer the matter to the Kingdom government

This ensures:

• Legal oversight without undermining democracy
• Clear accountability structures

Resolution of the Case

Eventually, after legal developments:

• A revised decree was submitted
• The Governor signed it
• The proper constitutional procedure was restored

This outcome aligned with the correct legal framework.

Final Conclusions of the Advisory

The advisory reaches a strong and unequivocal conclusion:

• The Governor’s actions exceeded constitutional limits
• They undermined the authority of the Prime Minister and the Council of Ministers
• They were constitutionally and democratically unacceptable

Recommendations

The advisory urges the government to:

• Clearly reaffirm constitutional boundaries
• Engage in dialogue with the Governor
• Prevent recurrence of similar situations
• Protect the primacy of democratic governance

It also warns against allowing precedents that could gradually expand the Governor’s role beyond its legal limits.

Conclusion

This advisory highlights a fundamental tension in constitutional systems that combine local autonomy with Kingdom oversight. While the Governor plays an essential role in safeguarding legal order, that role must remain strictly limited.

The key takeaway is clear:

Democratic authority must remain with elected officials.
The Governor advises, safeguards, and escalates—but does not govern.

Click here to read Professor Van Rijn's advice to Prime Minister Dr. Luc Mercelina.

~Introduction: Authority or Overreach?~

PHILIPSBURG:--- Professor Arjen van Rijn’s legal advisory on the constitutional role of the Governor of Sint Maarten presents itself as a definitive defense of democratic order. It is written with confidence, framed in doctrinal clarity, and anchored in established principles of ministerial responsibility.

But beneath that confident tone lies a troubling reality:

The advisory is not merely a legal analysis; it is a one-sided interpretation that risks distorting constitutional balance, minimizing the Governor’s lawful discretion, and oversimplifying a complex institutional conflict.

When read alongside the Governor’s formal response of March 27, 2026, the weaknesses in Van Rijn’s conclusions become strikingly apparent.

A Selective Reading of the Constitution

Van Rijn’s central thesis is blunt:

• The Governor has no independent authority
• The Governor must ultimately follow the ministers
• There is “no third way” between passive compliance and escalation to the Kingdom

This rigid framing is presented as settled constitutional doctrine. But it is, in reality, a selective reading of the constitutional framework.

What Van Rijn Ignores

The Governor’s response makes clear that:

• The refusal to sign the decree was not unilateral activism, but a reaction to a deep and irreconcilable conflict between ministers
• In such a situation, the Governor cannot simply “pick a side”, as Van Rijn’s logic would effectively require
• The Constitution (Article 39) places decision-making responsibility squarely on the Council of Ministers, not the Governor

In other words:

The Governor did not overreach—he refused to be dragged into a political conflict that was not his to resolve.

Van Rijn’s advisory glosses over this nuance, reducing a complex constitutional dilemma to a simplistic command: “the Governor must sign.”

The Myth of “No Third Way”

Perhaps the most controversial claim in the advisory is the assertion that:

There is no “third role” for the Governor—only compliance or escalation.

This is not only legally debatable—it is practically unrealistic.

Reality: Constitutional Practice Is Not Binary

The Governor’s response demonstrates a more grounded understanding:

• The Governor may advise, caution, and influence proceedings
• The Governor may urge ministers to reconsider participation in sensitive matters
• The Governor may act to preserve procedural integrity and unity of government

Van Rijn dismisses these actions as unconstitutional interference. But in doing so, he ignores a crucial fact:

Constitutional governance operates in grey zones, not rigid binaries.

By denying this, the advisory imposes an artificial rigidity that does not reflect real-world governance—especially in small, politically sensitive jurisdictions like Sint Maarten.

Mischaracterizing the Governor’s Actions

Van Rijn’s advisory paints a picture of a Governor who:

• Excluded ministers
• Illegitimately participated in cabinet deliberations
• Undermined democratic authority

But the Governor’s own account tells a different story.

1. No “Ban” on Ministers

Van Rijn claims ministers were prevented from attending meetings.

The Governor clarifies:

He did not forbid attendance, but strongly advised against it based on constitutional considerations

This distinction is critical—and Van Rijn’s failure to acknowledge it is not a minor oversight, but a misrepresentation of facts.

2. Participation in Meetings: Improper or Permissible?

Van Rijn condemns the Governor’s presence in Council meetings as a violation of constitutional boundaries.

Yet the Governor points out:

• There are no explicit constitutional prohibitions on such participation
• His involvement remained within established constitutional limits
• His objective was to restore unity in government policy, not dictate outcomes

Van Rijn’s argument here relies less on law and more on normative preference disguised as constitutional certainty.

3. Refusal to Sign: A Constitutional Duty, Not Defiance

Van Rijn treats the refusal to sign as obstruction.

But the Governor explains:

• The refusal stemmed from a serious disagreement within the Council of Ministers
• In such cases, the Governor must avoid legitimizing a contested decision
• The matter properly belonged to the Council itself to resolve

This is not overreach—it is restraint.

A One-Sided Defense of Ministerial Power

At its core, Van Rijn’s advisory elevates ministerial authority to near-absolute status:

• Ministers decide
• The Governor follows
• Any deviation is unconstitutional

But this approach raises a serious question:

Who safeguards constitutional order when ministers themselves are divided, conflicted, or procedurally compromised?

Van Rijn offers no meaningful answer.

Instead, his framework effectively:

• Strips the Governor of meaningful oversight capacity
• Reduces the office to a ceremonial rubber stamp
• Ignores the Governor’s responsibility to ensure lawful and coherent governance

Democratic Legitimacy vs. Constitutional Safeguards

Van Rijn repeatedly invokes “democratic legitimacy” to justify limiting the Governor’s role.

But this argument is incomplete.

Democracy Is Not Absolute

Democratic governance is not just about majority rule—it is also about:

• Legal integrity
• Procedural fairness
• Institutional balance

The Governor’s role exists precisely to safeguard these elements.

By framing any assertive action by the Governor as “undemocratic,” Van Rijn:

Confuses political authority with constitutional correctness.

The Danger of Overcorrection

Ironically, in seeking to prevent executive overreach, Van Rijn’s advisory risks creating a different problem:

An overly weakened Governor incapable of acting when it truly matters.

This has real consequences:

• In moments of crisis, the Governor may hesitate to act
• Procedural breakdowns may go unchecked
• Constitutional safeguards may become ineffective

In short:

A Governor reduced to passivity is not a safeguard—it is a liability.

Conclusion: Law, Not Dogma

Professor Van Rijn’s advice is thorough, articulate, and grounded in respected doctrine. But it is also:

• Overly rigid
• Selective in its interpretation
• Dismissive of constitutional nuance
• Insufficiently attentive to the factual context

The Governor’s response exposes these weaknesses clearly.

Ultimately, the issue is not whether ministers hold political primacy—they do.

The issue is whether that primacy justifies:

• Ignoring internal conflict
• Forcing the Governor into political choices
• Reducing constitutional oversight to mere formality

The answer must be no.

Final Verdict

Van Rijn’s advisory does not merely defend constitutional order—it redefines it in a way that narrows the Governor’s role beyond what law, logic, and practice can sustain.

And in doing so, it risks undermining the very balance it claims to protect.

CLICK here to read the Governor's Response to Professor Van Rijn's legal advice to Prime Minister Dr. Luc Mercelina

~The Dawn of a New Era of Care~

CAY HILL:--- On Thursday, March 26^th, St. Maarten Medical Center (SMMC) celebrated the construction of the St. Maarten General Hospital (SMGH) project reaching its highest point of construction. The first section of the roof has been completed, marking a momentous milestone in the construction of the new hospital.

The ceremony brought together key dignitaries, stakeholders, and staff, including Honorable Prime Minister Dr. Luc Mercelina and his wife, SMMC Gynecologist Dr. Patricia Mercelina-Roumans, Honorable Minister of VSA Richinel Brug, Honorable Minister of Justice Nathalie Tackling, CEO of general contractor FINSO, Salvatore Esposito, St. Maarten Trust Fund Program Manager Toyin Jagha and many others who have played pivotal roles in the project’s progress.

The event opened with a heartfelt prayer delivered by Dr. Emiko Bird-Lake, invoking blessings, guidance, and protection for the continued construction journey.

SMMC CEO and Medical Director Dr. Felix Holiday welcomed attendees with an inspiring address emphasizing the power of collaboration behind the SMGH project. “This project is not the vision of one individual, but a collective effort that was carefully designed, collaboratively shaped, and built through the dedication of many people and institutions united by a single mission, to provide high-quality healthcare close to home,” he stated.

Dr. Holiday extended gratitude to the Council of Ministers, past and present, the consortium of lenders, SZV, the St. Maarten Trust Fund, Members of Parliament, SMMC’s neighbors, vendors, the local media, and all stakeholders who have contributed to bringing the new hospital to life. He also commended FINSO and its subcontractors for transforming plans on paper into a structure that will serve as the future home of advanced healthcare for the community.

He also highlighted SMMC’s 450 employees as the institution’s greatest asset, thanking them for their commitment, feedback, enthusiasm, and willingness to grow both personally and professionally.

Minister of VSA Richinel Brug shared passionate words about the significance of the project for the people of St. Maarten and the advancement of healthcare. Mr. Jimmy Challenger, Vice Chair of the Supervisory Council, echoed the sentiments of previous speakers and acknowledged the important groundwork laid by former Supervisory Councils of SMMC. Mr. Salvatore Esposito, CEO of FINSO, expressed appreciation for the strong collaboration with SMMC and the opportunity to help shape a landmark project for the island.

Prime Minister Luc Mercelina delivered closing remarks, stating how near and dear this project is to his heart and reflecting on his years at SMMC as a general surgeon before assuming the office of Prime Minister. He thanked his former colleagues and all hospital staff for their unwavering dedication, emphasizing that the project’s success would not be possible without their continued commitment.

Following the speeches, a small delegation ascended to the roof to hoist flags and ceremonially christen the building with champagne, a longstanding tradition in construction milestones. Guests later gathered for a reception accompanied by live music performed by SMMC employee and musician Cecile Griffith.

SMMC extends its appreciation to the planning and organizing committee, staff volunteers, and vendors for making the event a success. With the highest structural point now reached, the organization looks forward with optimism to the completion of the new hospital and the dawn of a new era of care for St. Maarten, Saba, St. Eustatius, and the wider region.