PHILIPSBURG:--- St. Maarten cannot afford to treat justice reform as a side issue. Questions about arrests, investigations, court cases, victims’ rights, due process, police powers, prosecution standards, and public confidence in the justice system are not abstract matters. They affect people’s liberty, safety, rights, and trust in the rule of law.
That is why the functioning — or lack thereof — of Parliament’s Justice Committee deserves serious public attention.
Parliament is not merely an observer in the legislative process. It is a co-legislator. Its committees are supposed to examine serious national issues, question ministers, study draft legislation, and help advance important reforms. When the country faces repeated concerns within the justice system, the Justice Committee should be among the most active committees in Parliament.
Instead, on one of the most important justice reforms before the country — the modernization of the Criminal Procedure Code — the committee has been almost invisible.
This is not a new issue. The previous Parliament, from 2020 to 2024, did significant work on this file. Importantly, Parliament did not simply sit down and draft a new Criminal Procedure Code on its own. A tender was issued. That tender was won by the law firm of Peggy Ann Brandon, which was hired to conduct an independent legal review and drafting process.
That Law Firm drafted the proposed new Criminal Procedure Code, including its explanatory notes, while working in discussion with the Justice Committee of Parliament during the 2020–2024 parliamentary term. The purpose was not political convenience. It was not to create legislation that could be accused of favoring any person, party, prosecutor, defendant, or government.
The guiding principle was clear: bring St. Maarten’s criminal procedure in line with modern standards in the Netherlands, the Kingdom, and Europe.
That point matters. Criminal procedure governs how the state investigates, prosecutes, arrests, detains, questions, tries, and punishes people. It also affects victims, police officers, prosecutors, judges, attorneys, and the wider public. If the rules are outdated or unclear, everyone in the justice chain suffers.
The previous committee understood that St. Maarten was lagging behind. It also understood that any reform had to be balanced. The new code had to protect the rights of suspects and defendants while also providing the prosecution and law enforcement with a clear, modern framework. It had to strengthen due process, clarify procedures, and bring the country closer to the standards already in place elsewhere in the Kingdom and Europe.
From what is publicly known, the committee completed and approved the draft for handling up to the 2024 parliamentary year.
Then a new Parliament came in — and the file appears to have gone quiet.
For the first part of this Parliament, the Justice Committee was chaired by MP Sjamira Roseburg. For the second part, the chairmanship moved to MP Franklin Meyers. Yet under both chairmanships, the public has seen no serious movement on the draft Criminal Procedure Code.
The committee has not visibly discussed the draft. It has not publicly questioned the Minister of Justice on its implementation. It has not explained whether the draft is still being reviewed, amended, delayed, rejected, or ignored. It has not informed the public what obstacles remain, what timeline exists, or whether the justice chain has been consulted on the next steps.
That silence is difficult to justify.
In recent times, St. Maarten has seen growing public concern about criminal cases, arrests, court decisions, prosecutorial choices, police actions, and broader questions about fairness and consistency in the justice system. Not every controversy would be solved by a new Criminal Procedure Code. But many of the recurring issues would at least be addressed within a clearer and more modern legal framework.
That is exactly why this draft matters.
If the Justice Committee is meeting on prison conditions, police concerns, youth crime, and other justice-related matters, then it cannot avoid the central legislation that governs criminal procedure itself. Those topics are important, but they all connect to the same foundation: the laws under which the justice system operates.
So the question must be asked directly.
Why did MP Sjamira Roseburg, as former chair of the Justice Committee, not move this draft forward in a visible and urgent way?
And why has MP Franklin Meyers, as the current chair, not placed the draft Criminal Procedure Code at the top of the committee’s agenda?
The committee should immediately call the Minister of Justice to provide a full status update. It should ask whether the draft prepared by the law firm of Peggy Ann Brandon is still the working document. It should ask whether the government supports it, whether changes are being proposed, whether advice has been requested, and when Parliament can expect formal handling.
The committee should also make clear whether consultations have taken place with the courts, the Public Prosecutor’s Office, the Bar Association, police leadership, victim-support organizations, prison authorities, and other relevant justice stakeholders.
These are not extraordinary requests. They are basic oversight.
St. Maarten’s justice system cannot continue operating with major reforms sitting in drawers while Parliament moves from one committee chair to another without explanation. The country paid for legal expertise. A law firm was selected through a tender. A draft was prepared with explanatory notes. The previous committee worked on it. The justice chain has long recognized the need for modernization.
Now the current Justice Committee must explain what it is doing with that work.
Justice reform should not depend on personalities, political convenience, or whether a committee chair chooses to make it a priority. It is a national obligation.
If Parliament is serious about strengthening the rule of law, the Justice Committee must stop treating the Criminal Procedure Code as a forgotten file. It must put the draft on the agenda, question the minister, inform the public, and set a clear path toward debate and implementation.
Anything less is not oversight.
It is neglect.
