Unbiased look at the Sint Maarten Elections
THE $3 MILLION DOLLAR MAN.
Judge Luiijks rips the prosecution to shreds in his decision where he said it raises spectre of "class justice" by prosecution. Theo Heyliger is the front and center in this case. Theo Heyliger deposited US$3 million in UP's account. The case was dismissed because of prosecutorial missteps.
In a scathing indictment of the prosecution, judge Luijks dismissed the case against all the defendants in the vote buying case named by the prosecution as the Masbangu case.The prosecution brought the case because, by selling their votes, the accused failed to recognize that their acts compromised the democratic principle of free and fair elections.The court agreed with the prosecution that voting fraud affects the foundation of democracy which is anchored in St. Maarten's constitution, and takes it for a ride. Parties that buy votes can send more parliamentarians to Parliament, which can then not be said to be the highest office of the country. From the statements on file, it can be deduced that the party with which co-defendant Roy Heyliger is affiliated, engages in vote buying on a massive scale. People were standing rows deep in front of the building where money was given out. There appears in the case files indications that controls were in place to make sure that the vote was cast for a candidate of the political party. The party even had a registration system to keep track of people who came looking for money. This control and registration system violated the principle of free and fair elections, the judge ruled.Without the willingness of the leadership to buy votes there can be no voting fraud, the judge continued. In the present case the prosecution has decided not to prosecute the political party and its leadership.The judge therefore ruled that decisions to prosecute must not be capricious or violate the principle of equal treatment. Violating this principle would be an injustice which also applies to decisions by the prosecutor about whether or not to prosecute.The judge then went on to state that in this case not only did the prosecutor neglect to prosecute the leadership of the political party, but they did not even take the trouble to determine the role of the leadership of this political the party, the UP, while there were enough indications in the files to do so. If co-defendant Roy Heyliger declares that he was responsible to Theo Heyliger, then the court fails to understand why Theo Heyliger was not summoned to the offices of the Landsrecherche to be heard. Reasons for investigation the leadership of the UP party can be found in the fact that according to CIE reports Theo Heyliger deposited US$3 million dollars in the UP party account. Several statements indicate that money was being dispensed from the abovementioned building.Inspite, of all this, the prosecution and the Landsrecherche kept the leadership and the UP party out of the picture while there are sufficient indications that they were involved in voting fraud. The court cannot understand this, but most of all finds this in conflict with the previously mentioned principles of justice.By only prosecuting the vote sellers, who according to their own statements asked for money because they were needy, the prosecution has, in the opinion of the court, in this case at least, exposed itself to the appearance of class justice in its decision to prosecute.The judge ruled, was placed before the decision whether to prosecute the accused or, based on the previously mentioned principles, (equal treatment) keep the accused also out of the picture by dismissing the prosecutor's case.The judge decided to dismiss the case, because then political parties would know that if they engaged in vote buying, they can be assured that the leadership will be investigated by the Prosecutors Office.
The three suspects were charged for receiving bribery for their votes, it is proven that three of the four suspects went to the UP head office in September 2010 in their uniforms and in a police vehicle seeking monies for their votes. Roy Heyliger admitted to the investigating officers that he gave the suspects $300 each in an envelope with a sticker that says "Vote for Theo".It should be noted that when the case was first called Judge Luijks gave the prosecution orders to review their case and to bring the right suspects before him because based on the statements given by Roy Heyliger he clearly stated he was working for the Leader of the UPP Party Theodore Heyliger. However, the prosecution maintained their grounds and cooperated with the defense lawyers who said they did not think any political party or its leaders were involved in the case which took four years before the National Detectives could have investigated it and took it to court.It is clear based on the corruption cases on St. Maarten that the Prosecutors Office is highly incompetent or they are in the pockets of those accused of corruption. Hopefully, this verdict that was rendered just days before the 2014 Parliamentary Elections will send a clear message to the Kingdom Council and the Minister of Justice and Security of the Netherlands that something is desperately wrong with the functioning of the Prosecutors Office on St. Maarten and instead of investigating the island they need to investigate the people they send to St. Maarten to maintain law and order.Prosecutor Tineke Kamps said the Prosecutors Office is now studying the decision and they will decide whether or not they will appeal the decision rendered on Monday. The prosecution has two weeks in which they must submit an appeal if they so desire.
Click here to view the decision rendered on Monday August 25th, 2014.
