The debate in Parliament on deputising for suspended members (see Monday paper) is noteworthy. Article 50, paragraph 2, of the Constitution allows such to prevent a lack of representation when elected representatives are placed in pre-trial custody or have been sentenced to prison, which – unfortunately – happened a few times in the past decade.
Much was said during Friday’s Central Committee meeting about St. Maarten being the only country in the Dutch Kingdom where this applies, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing. It means preventing undesirable and awkward situations where someone charged with or found guilty of serious crimes, including function-related, can stay in legislative office until their appeal options are exhausted, with all possible consequences.
That FOL-leader Anthony Godett wanting to attend meetings while jailed in Curaçao prompted the article is less interesting than its overall objective. Certainly, in terms of promoting an image of integrity, creating legal provisions for suspending political authorities speaks in St. Maarten’s favour, as does having a Constitutional Court.
That the matter needs to be better regulated as pointed out by United Democrats (UD) leader Sarah Wescot-Williams makes sense. However, there is no need to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Persons jailed for or convicted of especially corruption ought to have no place in the people’s house unless acquitted, it’s as simple as that. And by the way, if fewer parliamentarians went independent and/or got kicked out of parties, it might make the whole process more comfortable.
On the other hand, one remains innocent until proven guilty, so it is only fair that those suspended continue receiving their income until such has been irrevocably established. That this means paying an extra member to deputise seems like the lesser of two evils.
