PHILIPSBURG:--- The 2026 Budget presents another significant allocation to the Ministry of Justice, but the real question facing taxpayers is whether Sint Maarten is investing in public safety or merely financing the continuation of long-standing institutional problems.

The proposed Justice budget exceeds previous years' levels in several key operational categories, including prisons, immigration services, police operations, border control, prosecution services, and related administrative functions. Yet nowhere in the budget is there a convincing explanation of how these expenditures will translate into measurable improvements in crime reduction, border security, or judicial efficiency.

Residents continue to experience concerns regarding violent crime, illegal immigration, delayed investigations, and chronic staffing shortages throughout the justice chain. Despite recurring annual allocations, public confidence in the justice system remains fragile. The budget therefore raises an uncomfortable question: are larger allocations producing better outcomes?

Particularly troubling is the continued emphasis on operational spending rather than structural reform. Salaries, personnel costs, and routine operational expenses dominate expenditure lines, while transformative investments appear limited. Citizens are entitled to know how many additional officers will actually reach the streets, how prison conditions will improve, how border controls will be strengthened, and what benchmarks will be used to evaluate success.

The budget also arrives against a backdrop of regional security challenges. Criminal networks do not respect borders, and Sint Maarten remains vulnerable due to its unique geographic and economic position. In such circumstances, simply maintaining current systems is insufficient. The country HIT requires modernization of law enforcement technology, improved intelligence capabilities, stronger prosecution capacity, and greater transparency regarding performance indicators.

A justice budget should not merely fund institutions; it should deliver justice. Yet the 2026 proposal provides limited evidence that the government has linked spending to measurable outcomes. Without clear targets and public accountability mechanisms, taxpayers may once again be asked to finance a larger justice apparatus without receiving greater security in return.

The central issue is not whether justice deserves funding. It unquestionably does. The issue is whether the government can demonstrate that increased spending will finally produce safer neighborhoods, more efficient courts, and stronger public trust. Until those answers are provided, the 2026 Justice budget remains more notable for its size than for its vision.

PHILIPSBURG:---  The 2026 budget debate is expected to begin on June 26, but a review of the draft budget documents and the advice issued by the Council of Advice already reveals a series of serious concerns about the government's handling of public finances. Among the most striking findings is a Cg. 600,000 contributions for Carnival that appear in the 2026 budget despite the fact that no such allocation was included in the 2025 budget, and Carnival 2025 has already taken place.

In its advice on the 2026 draft budget, the Council of Advice specifically highlighted the inclusion of a Cg. 600,000 allocation for Carnival under Verzamelstaat G, the schedule of subsidies, contributions, and income transfers. The Council noted that the 2025 budget contained no allocation for a Carnival contribution. Because the event has already taken place, the Council warned that any contribution that was promised, committed, or paid may be in conflict with Article 16, paragraph 3, of the Comptabiliteitslandsverordening.

That provision concerns the fundamental principle that government expenditures must have proper budgetary coverage before public funds can be committed or spent. In practical terms, government cannot legally promise, obligate, or disburse public money without an approved budgetary basis. If the Cg. 600,000 was promised or paid before Parliament approved the necessary allocation, then the expenditure may have occurred without the required legal authorization.

The Council of Advice therefore recommended that government ensure future subsidies and contributions are arranged in a timely manner and backed by the required budgetary approvals in order to avoid conflicts with Article 16, paragraph 3, of the Comptabiliteitslandsverordening.

Government's response to that recommendation was brief and direct: "De regering volgt het advies van de Raad" — "The government follows the advice of the Council."

However, the response leaves several critical questions unanswered.

Was the Cg. 600,000 already paid out? Was it only promised? Who authorized the commitment? From which budget post was the money taken? Was another budget line used to cover the expenditure? And why was Parliament not asked to approve the amount through a formal amendment to the 2025 budget?

These questions become even more significant when viewed in the context of other spending decisions taken by the same administration. The same Council of Ministers—and particularly the Minister of Education, Culture, Youth and Sport (ECYS)—was reportedly unable to find funding to provide flags for Flag Day. Yet government appears to have found a mechanism to arrange Cg. 600,000 for Carnival despite the absence of a corresponding budget allocation approved by Parliament.

The issue also raises concerns regarding accountability and financial oversight. Reports indicate that the Carnival foundation has not submitted audited financial statements for the past two years. If that is indeed the case, government must explain how such a substantial public contribution could have been promised or paid to an organization that has not provided up-to-date audited financial accountability.

Carnival is undoubtedly one of St. Maarten's most important cultural events and plays a significant role in the country's social and cultural life. Nevertheless, public support for Carnival must still be administered within the framework of the law. Cultural importance cannot serve as a justification for bypassing the budget process, weakening parliamentary oversight, or transferring public funds without proper accountability. Carnival should not come at the expense of the country's financial integrity.

The Council of Advice's concerns extend beyond the Carnival contribution itself and point to broader weaknesses in the government's budget process.

The Council noted that the 2026 budget was submitted late and further observed that St. Maarten has never succeeded in having its national budget adopted on time. According to the Council, this recurring pattern continues to undermine effective financial management and governance.

The Council also pointed out that the annual accounts for 2022, 2023, and 2024 have still not been adopted. These realization figures are essential because they provide the financial foundation necessary for preparing realistic and reliable future budgets. Without approved annual accounts, Parliament and the public are left without a complete picture of government finances when evaluating new spending proposals.

In addition, the Council criticized the government's decision not to submit a 2025 budget amendment. Government argued that avoiding a budget amendment would help accelerate preparation and approval of the 2026 budget. While the Council acknowledged that intention, it warned that such an approach risks undermining Parliament's constitutional budget authority and could create a situation where expenditures are effectively authorized outside the normal parliamentary process.

As an example of this concern, the Council referred to the government's contribution of approximately Cg. 900,000, or roughly USD 500,000, to the Soul Beach Music Festival 2025. According to the Council, this expenditure was also not included in the 2025 budget and was not submitted to Parliament for approval through a budget amendment.

Viewed collectively, the Carnival contribution and the Soul Beach Festival contribution appear to reflect a broader pattern in which financial commitments are made first and only later incorporated into the budget process. Such a practice raises serious concerns about transparency, legality, fiscal discipline, and respect for Parliament's budget rights.

The Council's observations suggest that government may be relying increasingly on after-the-fact budget adjustments rather than obtaining parliamentary approval before making financial commitments. If that perception is accurate, it represents a significant governance issue that deserves careful scrutiny during the upcoming budget debate.

As Parliament prepares to debate the 2026 budget, government ministers will likely face questions regarding the Carnival contribution, the Soul Beach Festival funding, the absence of approved annual accounts, and the broader issue of expenditures being undertaken without prior budget authorization.

Government will have to explain whether the Cg. 600,000 Carnival contribution was already paid, when the decision was made, who authorized it, what legal basis was used, whether the Carnival foundation submitted the required audited financial statements, why Parliament was not asked to approve the expenditure through a 2025 budget amendment, and whether similar practices were followed in connection with other government-funded events.

The key question now remains straightforward but politically significant: if government could not find money to provide flags for Flag Day, how did it find Cg. 600,000 for Carnival without proper budget approval being in place?

PHILIPSBURG:--- Prime Minister Dr. Luc F.E. Mercelina, in his capacity as Acting Minister of Public Health, Social Development and Labor (VSA), has reaffirmed the Government's unwavering commitment to integrity, transparency, professionalism, and the protection of civil servants throughout the public service.

Following recent public statements by Member of Parliament Francisco Lacroes regarding whistleblower protections, safeguards for civil servants, and the ability of public officials to raise concerns without fear of retaliation, Prime Minister Dr. Luc F.E. Mercelina, in his capacity as Acting Minister of Public Health, Social Development and Labor (VSA), requested a factual review from the Ministry VSA to determine whether any formal complaints, reports, or documented concerns had been submitted through the appropriate administrative channels.
In response to the Prime Minister's official request, the Ministry of VSA is unaware of any formal reports, complaints, or official notifications from staff members concerning hierarchical intimidation, harassment, retaliation, or related matters within the Ministry. Furthermore, no formal complaints, reports, or documented concerns were identified concerning the Prime Minister in relation to the matters raised publicly.
Prime Minister Mercelina emphasized that every concern raised by members of the public, civil servants, or elected officials deserves to be taken seriously and reviewed objectively. At the same time, he noted that good governance requires that concerns be assessed based on facts, evidence, and established procedures.

"Integrity is not demonstrated through assumptions or speculation. It is demonstrated through transparency, accountability, due process, and a willingness to verify the facts," stated Prime Minister Mercelina. "When questions were raised publicly, I believed it was important to seek a factual assessment through the appropriate administrative channels rather than rely on perceptions or public commentary."

The Prime Minister stressed that civil servants are the backbone of Government and must always be able to perform their duties professionally, provide objective advice, and raise concerns through established mechanisms without fear.

"Our public servants have a responsibility to serve the people of Sint Maarten with professionalism and integrity, and the Government has an equal responsibility to ensure that they are able to carry out those duties within a respectful and professional working environment," he said.

Prime Minister Mercelina further noted that the Government has administrative structures, policies, and procedures in place to address workplace concerns and personnel matters through the appropriate channels. These mechanisms exist to ensure that concerns can be raised responsibly and addressed fairly, confidentially, and in accordance with applicable regulations and principles of good governance.

"The protection of public servants and the integrity of our institutions are not mutually exclusive. They go hand in hand. Any legitimate concern brought forward through the appropriate channels deserves proper consideration, and any matter requiring review should be handled fairly, professionally, and without prejudice," the Prime Minister added.

The Prime Minister reiterated that neither he nor his Government will tolerate intimidation, retaliation, or any action that undermines the professionalism of the public service. Equally, he emphasized the importance of ensuring that public statements regarding Government operations are grounded in verifiable facts.

"As Acting Minister of VSA, I remain fully committed to fostering a culture of openness, accountability, professionalism, and mutual respect. The people of Sint Maarten deserve a Government that is guided by facts, fairness, and integrity, and that is precisely what this administration will continue to uphold."

To further ensure transparency and keep the legislative branch duly informed, the Prime Minister confirmed that a formal notification by letter outlining the findings of the review will also be submitted to the Parliament of Sint Maarten for the information of the Members of Parliament.

Prime Minister Mercelina concluded by reaffirming that should any formal complaints, reports, or documented concerns arise in the future, they will be addressed promptly, professionally, and in accordance with the principles of good governance and the established procedures of Government.

WILLEMSTAD:---  The Supreme Court in the United Arab Emirates has approved the extradition of S.A.Q., one of the leaders of the criminal organization No Limit Soldiers (NLS). S.A.Q. has been extradited to Curaçao.
Curaçao requested extradition to the authorities in the United Arab Emirates on September 11, 2024. S.A.Q., extradition proceedings lasted for a year because S.A.Q. Decided to contest the extradition. This completes the most important part of the ongoing THEMIS INVESTIGATION.
The THEMIS INVESTIGATION is an investigation into a criminal organization suspected of committing and/or instigating murder, large-scale narcotics trafficking, and money laundering in the territories of both Curaçao and St. Maarten. In the THEMIS INVESTIGATION, different suspects have already been convicted. The investigation is ongoing, and more arrests are not excluded.