PHILIPSBURG:--- With questions mounting over fuel costs and electricity bills, Prime Minister Dr. Luc Mercelina owes the public an explanation about his reportedly planned meeting on October 08th 2026, with SOL and selected Members of Parliament. Sources close to SMN News have confirmed the meeting is ongoing. Why hold this gathering while BTP is still examining SOL’s pricing, and why involve only a chosen group of MPs?
SMN News has already reported that TEATT Minister Grisha Heyliger-Marten confirmed an ongoing inquiry into SOL’s fuel pricing. BTP requested information and supporting documents from the company on September 21; SOL was given additional time to respond, and the inquiry had not yet reached final conclusions.
That makes the timing of the Prime Minister’s meeting particularly questionable. What does he expect to achieve before SOL has completed its responses to BTP? Could a separate discussion with political figures affect the explanations the company gives investigators, or shape how those explanations are received before they have been properly examined?
The Prime Minister should explain why this meeting needs to happen now.
The planned meeting reportedly also angered members of the governing coalition, who met with the Prime Minister and urged him to allow BTP’s inquiry to proceed without interference. That reported intervention raises further questions about how he handled the matter. If members of his own coalition felt compelled to ask him to respect the investigative process, the Prime Minister should explain what concerns they raised and whether he acted on their request.
SOL also has questions to answer.
Knowing that it is responding to BTP’s inquiry, did SOL itself question whether this separate meeting was appropriate? Did the company ask how the discussion would relate to the information BTP has requested, or whether BTP should first have the opportunity to examine its answers?
If SOL agreed to participate, what assurances did it seek that the gathering would not become a platform for presenting its position politically before the inquiry is finished? The Prime Minister alone does not bear responsibility for respecting that process.
There are also questions about the guest list. Reportedly, just two opposition MPs were initially invited. MP Lyndon Lewis, who had also raised concerns about SOL, was reportedly left out.
If that account is accurate, who decided which MPs deserved a seat at the table? Why exclude Lewis?
Why not take the briefing to Parliament?
If the intention is to give elected representatives answers, Parliament is the obvious place to do it. The Prime Minister could seek a parliamentary meeting where all MPs can hear SOL’s explanations and ask questions. If sensitive business information is involved, Parliament could consider a closed-door session.
Why opt for an unofficial “back-room” gathering instead?
A private meeting with handpicked MPs does not give Parliament as a whole the same opportunity to examine the issue. Nor does it explain how the public will learn what was said, what evidence was presented, or whether the company’s answers withstand scrutiny.
This leaves an uncomfortable question: is the meeting meant to inform MPs, or could their presence lend credibility to the Prime Minister’s own account of the SOL issue?
Will those attending be able to meaningfully challenge the information, or could they end up serving as props for a message presented afterward? The Prime Minister should make clear what role he expects them to play.
There is also a political question. Could this initiative be an attempt to recover political standing by casting the Prime Minister as the person delivering a solution to high energy costs? Is the rush to appear as the problem-solver taking priority over the work already underway?
If so, the danger is that a meeting potentially promoted as progress could actually hinder the process needed to establish reliable answers. Political credit should follow demonstrated results. A gathering with SOL is not, by itself, a solution to anyone’s electricity bill.
Another route is available: let BTP obtain SOL’s answers, examine the documents, and finish its work. Those results could then inform a briefing to Parliament. Why move ahead of that process?
For residents, this is about the money leaving their pockets. It is about the GEBE bill they struggle to pay and the price displayed when they pull up at the pump. Fuel costs reach into household budgets, business expenses, and the prices consumers face across the island.
An issue with broad consequences deserves more than selective invitations and unanswered questions.
The situation also recalls the controversy involving former VSA Minister Richinel Brug, who accused the Prime Minister of interference in his ministry. URSM rejected those accusations. During parliamentary proceedings on the motion of no confidence against Brug, Mercelina said ensuring unity in government policy was his responsibility.
How does that position square with arranging a separate SOL meeting while another ministry and BTP are pursuing an inquiry? Is the Prime Minister bringing the work together, or stepping into someone else’s responsibilities and potentially intruding on a government ZBO’s freedom to investigate?
If he relied on government unity to explain his actions in the Brug controversy, the public is entitled to ask whether he is applying that principle consistently now.
None of these questions establishes that the meeting has compromised the inquiry or that political motives drove its organization. But the reported arrangements raise serious concerns about political influence, openness, and how a matter affecting the entire population is handled.
SMN News is looking to the Prime Minister and SOL for answers. Why this timing? Why these MPs? Why this format? What consideration was given to the ongoing BTP inquiry? And why not arrange a briefing that gives every Member of Parliament the opportunity to hear and question the same information?
The people paying the bills deserve to know what this meeting is really meant to achieve.
