SXMElections.com

PHILIPSBURG--On Wednesday, the Court once again declared the case launched by United People's (UP) Party Association and its chairperson and Member of Parliament (MP) Sylvia Meyers-Olivacce inadmissible in the injunction it had filed to obtain a copy of the voters register.

After having been told on Tuesday by the judge that the injunction should not have been filed against the Minister of General Affairs and the Government of St. Maarten, but rather against Country St. Maarten, lawyers for the UP immediately filed a new, very similar injunction against the country, which was heard on Wednesday.

Country St. Maarten was represented by attorney at law Richard Gibson, Jr. and Henk-Jan Habermehl, head of the government's legal department. The UP was represented by Brenda Brooks and Mrs. De la Rosa, who stood in for Mrs. Brandon. Sylvia Meyers-Olivacce was also present.

The UP had sought a court order to provide the party with a copy of the voters register within three hours after judgement, against payment of a fine in case of non-compliance. UP said it had requested a copy of the voters register for the parliamentary election of Friday, August 29, with the Minister of General Affairs on August 13, but had not received a response.

The judge first of all determined that the Civil Court was authorised to hear the case. The court followed the view that dispensing personal information to others cannot take place without a lawful reason, as a result of the constitutional right of citizens to protect their personal lives.

In the Election Ordinance it is stipulated that the Minister of General Affairs is responsible for the registration of eligible voters with the Civil Registry. The Minister is obliged to provide information about the voters register free of charge to any authorised person, to enable people to ascertain whether their personal information in the register is correct. The Electoral Ordinance does not stipulate or allow disclosure of the electoral register in a way as requested by the UP.

Every Dutch National registered in St. Maarten has a right to vote. It is deemed important that everyone can check the register to ensure they can safeguard their right to vote. The judge stated that it was understandable that the UP wished to check to help people who approach them with queries directly; however, access by a party in these circumstances is not a constitutional right.

It was also deemed understandable that the UP wished to ensure the elections were fair by checking that eligible voters had received their voting cards, however, "this role has not been attributed to them (the UP) in the way that they seek."

Under Netherlands Antilles' law, copies of the register were also made available to political parties, but this stipulation was not adopted in the Election Ordinance of Country St. Maarten.

The UP had also said that it needed access to the register to check the legality of accepting members and donations. The court, however, held that there was no reason that individuals could not obtain this information and supply it themselves. Only people who have a right to vote may join a political party or make donations above NAf. 5000.

The UP had argued that certain people on the candidate list of other parties, through their occupation, had access to the register and were able to use it for their campaign. The court held that there was no evidence that anyone had used the register in such a way, and even if this should have taken place, this would not lead to a general acceptance of the register being accessible in a way not in accordance with the law.

The register shows full name, place and date of birth, address and voting district. The judge quoted article 5 of the State Ordinance which states that everyone has the right to protect their personal lives with regards to recording and disclosing personal details.

Those details have to be processed fairly, for specific goals and with permission of the subject or based on a legal ordinance. Legal regulations are instated for people to obtain recorded information about themselves, and the use of this information, as well as the improvement of this information.

Since the electoral ordinance does not have a legal facility to hand over a copy of the full register to anyone who requests it, the request made does not comply with the electoral ordinance.

Article 8 states that information may not be processed, where the importance of the interests or fundamental rights and freedom of the individual comes first. Processing has been defined as "supplying by means of sending, distributing, or making available in other ways.

This means that the rights of a person, whose details are disclosed, weigh heavily, even if only the name were to be disclosed. Especially where the interests of the person or organisation requesting the information can be met in a different way, the privacy considerations should be given preference.

The court did note the concern of the UP that the privacy of voters had already been breached by sending out voter cards without envelopes, and the fact that the old voters register of 2010 had been re-supplied. This did not influence the case with regards to the current register.

The court concluded that the demand has no grounds in law, and is against the right of privacy of individuals. The request was therefore denied. The UP, as the losing party, was ordered to pay legal costs, estimated at some NAf.1000.