Unbiased look at the Sint Maarten Elections
~ 'Something wrong,' way forward to be determined ~
PHILIPSBURG--Marlon Halley, supported in particular by community spokesperson Yvette Halley, had the transfer of land rights plaguing him heard by Members of Parliament on Thursday during a Petitions Committee meeting at Parliament House.
The meeting was the result of a petition submitted March 4 that called for Parliament to thoroughly investigate "fishy business" surrounding the land deal that entailed government taking ownership of the land where Marlon Halley has operated a business for some 28 years, and long-leasing it to developers without his knowing. He now faces eviction.
The Halleys were unexpectedly asked to speak at the meeting. They actually had not heard back from Parliament on the status of the petition, but knew about the public meeting taking place after reading about it in the media.
Nonetheless, without having her documents at hand Yvette delivered a presentation on what the family has been referring to as a "saga," which set the pace for a question-and-answer session during which MPs showed some concern and bafflement over Marlon's story. However, the MPs are uncertain as to how they would be able to move forward.
The work method, or way of moving forward and defining the type of role that MPs could take in this situation, was the first agenda point. This is the first petition being addressed by the committee, so the MPs also were taking into account what type of precedent they were setting. MP Tamara Leonard said a main concern was setting "attainable" goals for both sides.
However, as the Halleys and other Simpson Bay community members showed up at the public meeting and had been asked to speak, MP Sarah Wescot-Williams suggested that the discussion was something that in retrospect should have happened before, and not in the presence of the petitioners.
She successfully suggested that the agenda point be moved to another date and the committee moved forward in hearing the story irrespective of what the exact way forward would be.
Throughout the meeting, MPs brainstormed possibilities for solutions or ways to proceed, but were limited by the many legal questions that came up. Handling it through the Central Committee and using that position to demand answers from Government were mentioned as possibilities.
MP William Marlin spoke of the possibility of a parliamentary inquiry (where those summoned are placed under oath) if the committee pursued the matter, although he said that within the Netherlands Antilles, this had been done only twice in 70 years, "... but if one is warranted, it is warranted now."
Wescot-Williams questioned whether it was not a fact that Government had issued filled land and granted a resolution on several occasions to rectify a situation even if rejected by court. If so, she asked why the same could not be done in this case.
According to the rules of order, the committee has another seven weeks to make a decision on pursuing the petition.
Bundle of questions
After Yvette Halley summarised the "saga" of the land-rights being claimed by government and long-leased to developer EFB Properties, MPs were left with many questions that Yvette had the opportunity to answer. However, she pointed out that many of the questions were the ones the community also has been asking and has not been able to obtain answers.
The story has been outlined in further detail in two articles by The Daily Herald: "Simpson Bay: Parliament must investigate land deal" on March 4 and "Halley asks PM for extension, still awaits any govt response" on March 19.
The MPs discussed some complexities and said they would have to check what certain rules are.
These include, based on the information presented, whether the ownership or long-lease agreement can be retracted if found to have been granted wrongfully, whether Government placing a newspaper notice for just one day that it was claiming the land was legally sufficient, whether paying the only heir to appear in court holds validity (this heir then withdrew from the case), and whether a sales agreement to which the Kadaster apparently did not have access sent to the Kadaster Office by a great-aunt holds validity.
Other questions raised included why heirs listed in documents available to the court had not been contacted, why Marlon – who uses the land on a daily basis and has obvious assets located on the land – had not been approached, why the developers apparently had been kept in the loop about Government's court case to claim the land, why Marlon's requests to acquire the land in long-lease had been ignored without reply but the request by developers had been granted, and whether the same law firm representing both the developer and Government presented a conflict of interest.
The issue of integrity within government was questioned, with reference being made to Integrity Chamber discussions in Parliament the day prior.
Wescot-Williams said the case had her attention and she had submitted to Minister of Public Housing, Spatial Planning, Environment and Infrastructure VROMI Marcel Gumbs a number of urgent questions relating to Simpson Bay development plans and this petition.
Marlin presented the story of Lee Halley, who sat on the panel as well, as a Simpson Bay local who used land and had applied for rights, but had been ignored, as the rights instead had been granted to a notary, as well as adjoining water rights. He said history was repeating itself and asked when enough would be enough. He commented that the poor man should not have to use up everything to be able to fight in the courts.
MP Silveria Jacobs said a legal mind would be needed to provide answers, but called it concerning and perhaps an issue of integrity. She pointed out that Parliament was the only place where Government could be called to answer. "If the Committee chooses not to do so, then this faction will do so." If things were done correctly, it can be proven to parliament, she added. She recalled the transfer of land within her family taking very long because heirs had to be researched.
MP Silvio Matser joked that he could not even get away with building a chicken coop without being approached by Public Works and wondered how the Department had ignored additional land filled by Marlon for more than 20 years, and him occupying the land for so long.
The Halleys described having contact with VROMI, Kadaster, the Court which reviewed the case, Ombudsman who reportedly would not look into it because it had been to court, the Prosecutor's Office with no response, and current VROMI Minister Gumbs with no response. There is a current lien in place at the Kadaster Office by heirs abroad.
MP Lake, VROMI
The deal happened during former VROMI Minister, now-MP Lake's tenure and many documents were signed by him. Lake was one of five MPs not part of the Committee to attend the meeting, which he said was out of good faith.
He pointed out that he had met with Marlon twice last year and proposed a few solutions, but neither Lake nor Marlon disclosed what these were. Lake said he had brought a Kadaster representative to the meetings out of good faith. These were not attended by Yvette, but she knew about them from Marlon.
He said no deed actually had been provided and he had not known Marlon was on the land and had not been privy to all details of the issue, although he knew that a court case had been lost.
He was against the idea of compensation because of the precedent it could set for the Committee. At one point he said, "Here in parliament, you can't instruct ministers to do anything. ..."
He repeated his advice for Marlon to approach Minister Gumbs to find a solution, adding that if he were VROMI minister now, he would find a solution. He said this was better than going through the courts again, but he was the type of person to want to sit down and find solutions. "If they want to do a parliamentary inquiry, I would love it," he said at one point.
He dismissed criticism as political games and later questioned why other MPs did not also use their power to help local people when applying for land.
He said it was "astonishing" that the Halleys had not shown up in court, when only one heir did, but as they had pointed out, they were not aware of the case. They also found out too late to appeal.
Jacobs commented that the issue was not being politicised, "because had it been anyone else sitting as minister, we would have had to deal with it the same way."
Committee's role
The initial agenda point on committee work methods entailed defining the goal and role of the MPs, and discussing whether they would take on cases that also are being handled, or have been handled, by the court or Ombudsman. Of those who had a chance to speak, MPs Wescot-Williams and Christophe Emmanuel were the most fervent in saying that grievances of the public should come to Parliament.
In relation to concerns, Emmanuel said, "If we should seek additional advice, there are councils for that at our disposal. ... They were in Parliament the other day saying 'use us.'"
Wescot-Williams said that perhaps the committee could decide within the 12 weeks allotted that petitioners should go another route, but that Parliament should not ignore petitions. She pointed out that in this case the issue had been directed to Government without response and that there were several outstanding issues with Government.
"Are we to say, 'Continue seeking from Government?' Citizens cannot call Government to order or demand that Government respond, but Parliament can," she said.
All Committee members were present but one, MP Theo Heyliger. The community previously had pointed out to this newspaper that the MP was familiar with the case. Other Committee members are Emmanuel, Wescot-Williams, Johan Leonard and Chairperson Leona Marlin-Romeo. The meeting notably attracted five non-committee MPs: Lake, Matser, Cornelius de Weever, Jacobs and Marlin.
