~Justice Minister says no formal suspension occurred and the investigation was fast-tracked due to a police shortage.~

PHILIPSBURG:---  Member of Parliament Lyndon Lewis on Wednesday demanded clarity from Minister of Justice Nathalie Tackling over who authorized the removal from active duty of the police officer involved in the school bus incident, while questioning whether officers facing different investigations are being treated equally within the Police Force of St Maarten.

Lewis raised the matter at the opening of Public Meeting No. 21 of the 2025–2026 parliamentary year, ahead of continued deliberations with the Justice Minister on road safety concerns and other justice-related matters.

MPs Lewis, Omar Ottley and Francisco Lacroes requested the meeting, originally convened on July 7, 2026. It was subsequently adjourned to allow the Minister time to prepare answers to questions submitted during the first round.

Lewis began by addressing the viral video showing a police officer correcting a student on a school bus. He acknowledged that the officer had not been formally suspended but noted that the officer had been taken off active duty while an investigation was conducted.

“Who gave the authorization for the officer not to be on the job while the investigation is going on?” Lewis asked.

The MP also questioned the checks and balances KPSM management used to decide whether officers under investigation should remain on active duty.

Lewis referred to what he described as other serious cases involving police officers, including an officer whom he said had been convicted in connection with the abuse of his wife, who is also a colleague, but remained on duty.

He also pointed to the investigation into the St. Peters police-involved shooting and questioned why the officers connected to that matter remained on the job while the officer involved in the school bus incident was initially taken off duty.

“How is it that a police officer who dealt with a student is not on the job?” Lewis asked. “I really would like to get some clarity on that situation.”

Tackling confirms officer returned to work

Responding to Lewis, Tackling confirmed that the officer involved in the school bus incident had already returned to work.

The Minister stressed that no formal suspension had taken place.

According to Tackling, authorities learned of the incident late Friday afternoon, shortly before the weekend. The minor's parents then filed a formal complaint, which police management was legally obligated to investigate.

The Minister said authorities attempted to complete the preliminary investigation as quickly as possible so that the officer could return to duty.

“The officer in question actually returned to work yesterday,” Tackling told Parliament, adding that he was already working during the early morning hours.

Tackling also disclosed that a meeting took place between the minor’s parents and the police on Tuesday.

However, the Minister did not directly identify who authorized the officer’s temporary removal from active duty, which was one of Lewis’s central questions.

Minister Corrects Public Narrative: Student Was 13, Not 17

Tackling also used the parliamentary meeting to correct widespread social media claims that the student involved was 17 years old.

The Minister confirmed that the child was 13.

“I’ve seen a lot of people on Facebook talking about the fact that this was a 17-year-old. The young man in question was not and is not 17 years old. He is actually 13 years old,” Tackling said.

She said the student’s correct age places the incident in a different context, particularly because some members of the public had used the claim that he was 17 to argue that he was nearly an adult and should have known better.

Tackling had explained during the Council of Ministers press briefing a day earlier that the internal investigation was not based solely on the brief interaction captured in the viral video.

Police management was also concerned that the child was removed from the school bus, placed in a police vehicle and later left alone at a bus stop.

The required procedure, according to the Minister, was to take the child to the police station and invite his parents to discuss his conduct. That procedure was not followed.

The parents subsequently filed a formal complaint, triggering the internal investigation.

Officers in Shooting Case Were Also Removed from Streets

Addressing Lewis’s questions about other police investigations, Tackling said officers involved in the separate police shooting case were also temporarily taken off the streets.

According to the Minister, those officers were placed on desk duty and received psychological or psychiatric assistance following the incident.

They were allowed to return to active duty after KPSM completed its internal investigation.

The matter has since become the subject of a criminal investigation being handled by the Public Prosecutor’s Office.

“We are, of course, awaiting the outcome of that criminal investigation and seeing where that goes accordingly,” Tackling said.

The Minister maintained that the established internal procedures have not changed. She said police management attempted to handle the school bus case pragmatically and conclude the preliminary investigation quickly.

Police Shortage Influenced Speed of Investigation

Tackling told Parliament that Sint Maarten’s shortage of police officers makes it especially difficult whenever an officer must be removed from active duty while an investigation is conducted.

“We have a shortage of police officers, and every time we have to send one of them home pending an investigation, it breaks my heart, and it hurts me from a public-order perspective,” the Minister said.

She added that officers also do not want to be sent home while investigations are pending.

Tackling said the Ministry and police management will continue attempting to complete such investigations as quickly as possible so officers can either return to duty or face the appropriate next steps based on the findings.

The Minister’s response confirmed that the officer involved in the school bus incident was never formally suspended, that the student was 13 rather than 17, that the parents filed a formal complaint, and that the officer has since returned to active duty.

Court records identify St. Maarten bank reports and concealed lottery revenue as part of the case. Government must explain whether it pursued the island’s financial interests.

PHILIPSBURG::--- The United States is returning approximately US$29.7 million recovered in the Bientu case to Curaçao. The money will go to Curaçao’s Crime Fund, with no announced allocation for St. Maarten. That omission raises a sharper question than the mere fact that convicted lottery businessman Robertico “Robbie” Dos Santos operated here:  the Bientu investigation itself began with financial transaction reports made on St. Maarten, and the trial court identified concealed revenue from his St. Maarten businesses.

According to the court’s account, a Windward Islands Bank compliance officer filed reports on January 10, 2008, concerning unusual cash transactions involving a company linked to Dos Santos. The court found that those reports warranted investigation and rejected a defense argument that the case had an improper start. A later prosecution filing stated that the matter was transferred to investigators in Curaçao because St. Maarten lacked sufficient financial investigation capacity at the time.

The St. Maarten connection continued into the financial findings. The court said its calculation of concealed revenue for 2004 through 2011 included N$ 15,864,161 in St. Maarten, described as a portion of lottery turnover set aside for Dos Santos and not declared to the tax authorities. That figure is concealed turnover, not an established amount of tax owed to St. Maarten or a calculated share of the US$29.7 million.

In a 2015 court filing, prosecutors also identified The Money Game N.V. and Jamaroma Lotteries N.V. as businesses operating on St. Maarten and subject to profit and turnover tax reporting. They said St. Maarten’s tax authority issued additional assessments. The filing does not establish whether those assessments were ultimately collected, changed on appeal, or remain outstanding.

The historical report supplied to SMN News concerns a dispute over Curaçao’s tax repentance regulation and political intervention during the investigation. The subsequent court proceedings are essential to understanding that dispute: the court examined challenges to the investigation and assessed evidence that included the St. Maarten transactions and concealed revenue. Curaçao’s own national risk assessment also describes money moving through banks in both Curaçao and St. Maarten.

The U.S. Department of Justice gives a specific reason for returning the forfeited funds to Curaçao. It says the transfer recognizes Curaçao’s losses and its assistance in obtaining and enforcing the court orders against money held in Miami. Curaçao prosecuted the case and requested the U.S. action. Those facts may explain the destination of this particular transfer, but the U.S. announcement does not address whether St. Maarten’s separately identified tax interests were raised or resolved.

That is where St. Maarten’s government owes the public answers. What became of the additional tax assessments against the St. Maarten companies? Was any money recovered? Did St. Maarten present its documented losses or investigative role to Curaçao or U.S. authorities before the transfer terms were settled? And did officials determine whether any portion of the forfeited Miami funds could be traced to revenue concealed on St. Maarten?

Curaçao says it will publish the signed agreement through official channels. SMN News has located the official announcements but has not located the signed agreement itself. The available record does not establish that St. Maarten is legally entitled to a portion of this US$29.7 million. It establishes ample reason to demand an accounting from St. Maarten’s ministers of Justice and Finance about what the country investigated, assessed, collected, and pursued.

PHILIPSBURG:---  Orco Bank, through its Orco Cares Program, has handed over campaign T-shirts to St. Maarten Medical Center (SMMC) in support of the upcoming “Man-Up.
Check Up.” health screening event taking place on Saturday, September 26, 2026.
The handover is part of the ongoing partnership between Orco Bank and SMMC to support community health initiatives in Sint Maarten, beginning with Prostate Cancer Awareness Month in September and continuing with Breast Cancer Awareness Month in October.

The “Man-Up. Check Up.” campaign encourages men to take a proactive approach to their health by getting screened and staying informed. The upcoming event will take place at St. Maarten Medical Center from 9:00 AM to 2:00 PM, with health screenings and a prostate checkup (DRE) available.
The campaign T-shirts will add visibility to this important message on the day of the event and reinforce a simple reminder: prostate cancer doesn’t send a warning text — getting checked matters.

“Through Orco Cares, we want to help create opportunities for people to take that important step of getting checked and taking care of their health,” said Judy King Richardson, Country Manager of Orco Bank Sint Maarten. “This T-shirt handover is another way we can stand alongside SMMC and help
keep the message of early screening visible throughout our community.”
Orco Bank’s partnership with SMMC reflects a shared commitment to increasing awareness, improving access to screening and encouraging people to take an active role in their health. The partnership extends beyond September’s prostate cancer awareness activities, with support planned for Breast Cancer Awareness Month in October as well as other patient and community initiatives through the end of the year.

Man-Up. Check Up.
• Saturday, September26, 2026

• 9:00 AM – 2:00 PM

• St. Maarten Medical Center
• Health screenings and prostate checkup (DRE) available.
Sint Maarten is our home — Orco Cares is how we show it.
Brought to you in partnership with Orco Bank under the Orco Cares Program.
For more information about Orco Bank, please visit https://www.orcobank.com. Stay connected
and follow us for daily updates on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/OrcoBank and LinkedIn
https://www.linkedin.com/company/orco-bank.

PHILIPSBURG: ---  Justice Minister Nathalie Tackling told Parliament that she signed a removal order for a person connected to a fatal traffic collision without knowing who the individual was or which investigation was involved. About 30 minutes later, after a message or telephone call from MP Lyndon Lewis, she contacted the chief public prosecutor and learned that the case remained under active investigation.

Tackling said the individual had been released from criminal custody and transferred to immigration authorities. According to the minister, the prosecutor did not tell her that the person had to remain in Sint Maarten for investigative purposes, and no such instruction was later communicated to the ministry. She said immigration authorities also considered the person’s immigration status and concerns about possible retaliation by the victim’s family.

The admission places a critical question before the public: How should authorities ensure that a person remains available to investigators before a removal order is carried out in a fatal-collision case?

Tackling told Parliament that the law does not require immigration officials to obtain formal clearance from the police or Prosecutor’s Office before executing a removal order. If prosecutors need a person to remain available, she said, they must communicate that need to immigration authorities. She maintained that removal does not end criminal liability and that prosecution can still be pursued.

The minister rejected the suggestion that she had information unavailable to investigators. She said she did not possess the criminal case file and had no authority to overrule prosecutorial decisions.

Her answers also exposed a limit in government recordkeeping. Tackling said the ministry could not provide a verified five-year count of people removed before serving all or part of a criminal sentence because prosecution and immigration records are kept in separate systems that are not automatically linked.

For the family of a fatal-collision victim, the distinction between a case remaining legally open and a person remaining available to investigators may be consequential. Parliament now has the minister’s account of the decision and its timing. The document containing her answers does not establish whether the removal affected this investigation or any future prosecution.