~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.
