Unbiased look at the Sint Maarten Elections
Parliamentarian Christopher Emmanuel of the National Alliance (NA) no doubt dropped a bomb during Monday’s debate about the instruction by the Kingdom Council of Ministers to Governor Eugene Holiday on the screening of candidate ministers. Emmanuel said he had been offered US $80,000 in 2010, but due to his earning a seat it now had become $400,000 and even had gone up to $2,000,000.
It’s important to note that the first-time legislator requested confirmation that he enjoyed parliamentary immunity before he made this revelation. He did not mention any name or even the party that supposedly tried to bribe him either.
The opposition member ought to realise there is jurisprudence indicating the immunity afforded Members of Parliament is by no means absolute. He also should not be surprised if law enforcement officials take a keen interest in his statement and seek further details.
While some applaud the young politician’s candour, others are wondering whether he reported what happened four years ago to the police or Prosecutor’s Office back then, if not why, and whether he indeed had done so with the latest case now. After all, it’s the civic duty of people who are aware of criminal activities to inform authorities of such.
Nevertheless, if what Emmanuel said turns out to be true that would to a certain extent justify growing concern in The Netherlands about a perceived lack of integrity regarding local elections and their outcome in terms of forming governments. Whether that should lead to the current measure being imposed on St. Maarten is another matter, but it does confirm the need for some type of action to counter what at least appear to be rather unsavoury political practices o the island.
It will be interesting to see whether the allegations come up again during today’s continuation of the public meeting. Unless clarity is provided soon, whatever motions are adopted against the measure from The Hague may lose much of their meaning.
