SXMElections.com

PHILIPSBURG--Four days before the election of a new Parliament of St. Maarten, which is scheduled for Friday, August 29, the Court of First Instance will hand down its verdicts in the so-called Masbangu case. This case concerns four persons allegedly involved in the selling and buying of votes during the first general election in Country St. Maarten, which was held September 17, 2010.

The Prosecutor’s Office considered all suspects guilty as charged and requested suspended prison sentences of three years, with two years’ probation.

Prosecutor Maarten Noordzij also requested 150-200 hours of community service, and that the Court take away suspects’ rights to vote.

In addition, the Prosecutor requested that United People’s (UP) party representative R.H. (60) be deprived of his right to be elected.

Together with H., (former) officials of the then-Police Force of St. Maarten, St. Eustatius and Saba C.J.L.C. (45) and A.R.W.M. (43) and of Voluntary Corps of St. Maarten VKS R.C.H.J. (63) appeared before the Judge on Monday. They are charged with voting for UP in exchange for money.

H. is accused of giving money to the officials in exchange for their votes.

Initially there also was a fifth suspect, Glinda Webster (50), but the late receptionist at the Philipsburg police station passed away on June 13 after an illness. Prosecutor Noordzij said Monday that he had no other choice but to request that the Court declare the Prosecutor’s Office’s case against Webster inadmissible, as the prosecution of deceased suspects is legally not allowed.

The Prosecutor said Webster should not be remembered as a suspect, but for her pleasant smile while doing her job at the police station’s reception desk.

Tight-lipped

All suspects remained tight-lipped during the hearing, declining to answer any questions and leaving their defence up to their attorneys. However, they said they maintained their statements given to the police during the earlier stages of the investigation.

The case is based mainly on Webster’s report given to the Police Department of Internal Affairs in which she stated she had overheard a conversation between M., C. and J. on September 15, 2010, in which it was said that UP was handing out money in exchange of votes.

The three were planning on driving to the party’s headquarters in Pointe Blanche and Webster asked if she could come along. At UP headquarters they asked to see Theo Heyliger and Al Wathey, but met with H. instead. They requested sums of US $300-700 in financial aid, stating they could not pay their bills for rent, electricity and school fees.

J. allegedly received a phone call from H. on September 16, 2010, during which he was told to stop by the UP office. On his return, J. allegedly told Webster they had not received anything. Webster told the police she found that hard to believe.

She met H. in Cay Hill on Election Day, September 17, 2010. Asked about the money, H. allegedly told her he had given J. four envelopes with money.

When she met with Ludwig Ouenniche at John Larmonie Centre, he allegedly confirmed to Webster that H. had given money to J.

Ouenniche told the police he was no UP member, but had assisted the party in its promotion campaign. “It is no secret that during election time people sell their votes for money, building blocks, a fridge or whatever,” he had told detectives.

Confronted with this, J. kept denying he had received any money, on which Webster decided to file an official complaint with Police Commissioner Carl John.

During the ensuing investigation by National Detectives, J. confirmed the visit to the UP office and the conversation with H., and said he had received three envelopes for M., C. and himself. He said he had received $300. C. and M. both denied they had ever received an envelope.

The suspects were required to submit copies of their passports to ascertain whether they were registered with the Civil Registry and eligible to vote, it was said.

H. denied he had been involved in vote-buying. He said he only had been in charge of the distribution of T-shirts, caps, flags and other promotional articles.

The retired marina owner said he knew J. from a resort where they both had been employed previously. “He came for promotional gimmicks and did not come for money, to my knowledge,” H. initially told the police.

Later, he admitted he had given J. envelopes with money. “I took it out of my own pocket and didn’t tell anybody,” he said.

According to the Prosecutor’s Office, H. had tried to convince the suspects to vote for UP.

Serious abuse

Prosecutor Noordzij qualified the alleged crimes as “serious abuse” during the September 2010 election, the last election before St. Maarten obtained its status as country within the kingdom.

He held it against the three police officials that they had violated their integrity and exemplary role in society and had endangered free and fair elections. This caused a lot of commotion in the media, at home and abroad, and had considerably damaged St. Maarten’s image.

Responding to attorneys’ objections to the “undue delay” in their clients’ cases, the Prosecutor stated that the seriously understaffed National Detectives Department had been confronted with a large number of criminal cases. He said he regretted the delay.

In answer to questions why the role of UP party (leadership) was not investigated, a question that also was posed by the Judge during a preliminary hearing on February 17, Noordzij said there were “sufficient leads” to be found in the case file warranting additional investigations into “persons or into the role of leaders/board of the UP. However, it was a well-considered choice of the Prosecutor’s Office to no longer carry out such an investigation four years later.”

Cold soup

The Prosecutor said it had been a “deliberate choice” to keep the investigation small. Referring to the lack of staff at the National Detectives, Noordzij said: “When you get a teaspoon to eat soup you’ll have to serve the soup in a small plate, or else the soup will turn cold.”

He said the role of other possible suspects, UP leaders and board members among them, would remain without legal repercussions on the four suspects on trial.

He underlined that the National Detectives had been out of line when they stated that “during the investigations it could not be ascertained that any political party or political organisation had bribed persons by a gift not to exercise their right to vote, or to execute it in a certain way.”

Noordzij said this was a judicial conclusion that was not supported by the case file. He said suspect H. could be considered a UP representative who had manifested himself as a relative of Theo Heyliger while working at the UP office and harvesting votes for the party.

The Prosecutor held it against suspects that they had been driving to UP headquarters in a police vehicle while wearing their uniforms. At the UP offices, C. and W. allegedly had asked for $700 and J. for $650. H. allegedly was to check whether they were eligible to vote and handed over the money, presumably $300, the next day. The money was wrapped in a “dummy voting ballot,” according to J.

“From various statements in the file it can be derived that it is “common” in St. Maarten that representatives of political parties hand over money or goods to voters in exchange for their vote. This public hearing prior to the upcoming election serves to express that it constitutes punishable acts of those who sell their votes, but also of party representatives who buy these votes,” the Prosecutor said.

He said suspects’ “greed” had led them to violate “honest, democratic” elections, whereas H. had sought to influence the outcome of the election in UP’s favour.

All lawyers requested that the Judge declare the Prosecutor’s cases against their clients inadmissible because of undue delays. They pointed out that almost four years had elapsed since the alleged crimes were committed, whereas almost two years have passed since the first witnesses were heard in September 2012.

Table tennis

C.’s lawyer Cor Merx, who had filed a (rejected) recusal request against presiding Judge Coen Luijks during the earlier stages in this case, said two years and 11 months had passed since his client first had been accused of accepting money.

Merx requested his client’s full acquittal and said the complexity of the case could not have been the reason for the delay. He pointed out that the case file consisted of only 144 pages, which were compiled in four years’ time.

“The Chief of Police [Peter de Witte – Ed.], former Chief Prosecutor [Hans Mos], former Attorney-General [Dick Piar] and the current Solicitor-General [Taco Stein] played “table tennis” with the case, during which they put the ball in a different place every time,” Merx said.

He said that due to this case, his client had been suspended and had become a “parasite” in the eyes of police leadership.

During the five-hour trial, attorney Jairo Bloem said there was no proof that his client J. actually had cast his vote for UP, or that his vote had been cast due to financial aid. Therefore, his client should be acquitted, Bloem reasoned, because the evidence for bribery was “circumstantial” and the charge unproven.

All attorneys pointed out that the distribution of “paraphernalia” and goods and services to people during election time was part of the island’s culture. “The distribution of money by political parties during election time is not forbidden; bribery is,” Bloem stated, adding that deprivation of voting rights was too high a punishment.

Moral crusaders

Attorney Cindy Marica said M. should be acquitted of bribery, as it could not be ascertained that he had accepted a gift to do something in return. “UP is known to give money to people in need, but my client never received an envelope,” Marica maintained.

“It is scandalous that the Prosecutor’s Office has decided to go after small folk and not party leadership. That is unfair.”

H.’s lawyer Eldon Sulvaran stated that violation of the “liberty to vote” was difficult to prove. “The ballot is secret and the freedom to vote is 100 per cent guaranteed in St. Maarten,” he claimed. “The political culture is the problem at stake here. Should moral crusaders and non-elected judges interfere?” he asked rhetorically.

According to Sulvaran there is a “grey area” between aiding people and persuading them to vote. “It is a phenomenon of all times and of all political parties before, during and after elections.”

He said there was no evidence that the money had been handed out under any condition, and said the Prosecutor’s Office had forfeited its right to prosecute.

Sulvaran said he feared the case would turn political. “Any decision in this case will have its impact on the election. That is dangerous for my client and evidently also for Theo Heyliger, who is related to my client.”

He requested that the Court delay any decision until after the election, but the Judge said he would present his decisions on Monday, August 25.