Your Excellency,
Last Thursday, it was announced that the newly appointed Cabinet intends to postpone the elections called for February 9, 2016 until electoral reform has been implemented. According to media reports, at the beginning of this week, Prime Minister Marlin will submit to you a draft National Decree with such postponement.
In the meantime, we are hearing rumors that the new Government will first seek a decision from Parliament on the postponement of the elections to have the draft National Decree supported by the new majority in Parliament and later in the coming week will present this to you to be signed.
The National Decree to hold elections on February 9, 2016 was signed by you on October 29, 2015, No. LB-15/0992. Since then, no less than five new political parties have been established and have applied to the Electoral Council for registration.
There is no doubt whatsoever, that there is great dissatisfaction among the general population about the functioning of the established political parties and more concretely, of the politicians in power, most of whom seem to be self-serving. Hence, the dissatisfaction does not only concern the phenomenon of the “ship jumpers”. This phenomenon is merely a symptom of the actual problem, which is the deficient functioning of the established politics.
The five recently established political parties which have applied to the Electoral Council for registration, wish to present themselves to the voters as an alternative to the established politics/politicians in the elections of February 9, 2016. As the political leaders of these five political parties, we therefore urgently call on you not to cooperate with the draft National Decree presented to you that would annul (or postpone) these elections.
The argument put forward by the Prime Minister to postpone the elections or to annul them until electoral and/or constitutional reform has been implemented, does not make any sense. For, one cannot expect that the present majority in Parliament which was brought about thanks to “ship jumping”, would (really) want to put an end to “ship jumping”. Additionally, the two thirds majority in Parliament required to be able to implement real electoral and constitutional reforms, is currently still non-existent. Since the current majority in Parliament consists only of eight members, two of which are so-called “ship jumpers”. Furthermore, in order to be able to successfully complete the legislative process within the given period, with some caution, may be referred to as very ambitious. There is therefore no guarantee whatsoever, that the current majority in Parliament would be able to implement electoral or constitutional reform. Consequently, we consider the argument nothing more than an opportunistic argument for the occasion. For, obviously, the new Cabinet has no intentions at all to function as an interim-Cabinet, especially considering statements made by several ministers both before and after their swearing-in. Just like the new majority in Parliament, it just wants to serve the full term.
The argument put forward is also totally irrelevant. As was already clearly stated by several constitutional experts (interview with professor Van Rijn and professor Kortmann, in the Daily Herald of November 11, 2015), a lawfully established National Decree to dissolve Parliament and to call for snap elections cannot be reversed.
With the National Decree signed by you on October 29, 2015, (No. LB-15/0992), the St. Maarten population acquired the right to express its democratic choice, or, we as new political parties obtained the right to present ourselves to the voters. Withdrawing or substantially amending this National Decree would affect the core of this National Decree, not only in the manner in which the constitutional experts have argued before, but especially also of the democratic rights of the St. Maarten population. The population of St. Maarten in comparison to that of the Netherlands, has to deal with only one layer of government, with related only one opportunity to exercise its influence on the composition of the Government. The St. Maarten population cannot allow a government to restrict its fundamental rights by denying the passive and active right to vote.
In this respect, we also refer to the advice of the judges E.J. van der Poel, J. Th. Wit and J. de Boer of October 21, 2015 which was made public at your request.
• In their reply to your question e (p.3), the judges indicate that even after a decree to dissolve Parliament a new Government can be formed: “In view of the upcoming elections, this Cabinet only has an interim character; it’s task is to handle the current affairs and to prepare the organization of the elections”.
• In their reply to your question g (p.4), the judges state that the government has the autonomous authority to dissolve Parliament in order to present to the voter the representative nature of the Parliament: “That the majority in Parliament does not seem to support the dissolution and the inextricably associated early elections, by no means should prevent that.”
Considering the reasons mentioned above, we trust that you as the Governor will refuse to cooperate with a draft National Decree to be submitted to you for the postponement of the elections of February 9, 2016, even if said National Decree would be supported by the new majority in Parliament.
In the event you unexpectedly still sign such a National Decree for whatever reasons of your own, we will challenge its lawfulness before the Court.
Please accept Sir, the assurance of our highest consideration,
Signed: B. Ortega
SDM
P. Gittens
MAP
Loekie Morales
Beyond SXM
W. Smith
SMCP
Mercedes van der Waals
HOPE
Cc:
Parliament of Sint Maarten
Council of Ministers of Sint Maarten
Kingdom Council of Ministers
Dutch Second Chamber
Prime Minister of Curaçao
Prime Minister of Aruba
General Audit Chamber
Ombudsman
Advisory Council
Council of State
Constitutional Court
The Joint Court of Justice of Aruba, Curaçao
Sint Maarten and of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba
Attorney General
