Dutch Minister of Home Affairs Ronald Plasterk in today’s paper sticks to his guns on the appointment of a quartermaster for the Integrity Chamber of St. Maarten. This, while the National Ordinance to establish one submitted by the former UP-led Government and adopted by Parliament was struck down by the Constitutional Court in its review at the request of the Ombudsman.
The current NA/US Party/DP coalition is formally still to outline its approach regarding an advice from the Legal Affairs Department based on the ruling. However, Prime Minister William Marlin, who had voted against the law proposal involved while part of the opposition, again made clear that his cabinet does not see the need for such an institution.
Moreover, he called the way the Netherlands had named a quartermaster itself an integrity breach also considering the recent history of the person involved. All this did not seem to bother the Kingdom Council of Ministers, which believed it needed to make a move based on the relevant protocol both parties signed in 2015, or “nothing will happen.”
Although not official, the expectation now is that The Hague might soon impose an Integrity Chamber on its own, making use of authorities granted under the guarantee function in the Kingdom Charter. Still, concerns voiced by the Constitutional Court about the right to privacy and fair trial are not to be brushed aside. If nothing else, the Council of State may have something to say about that.
The issue illustrates the importance of a dispute regulation within the Kingdom (see related story). Here again, it is the Dutch Government’s version that will be considered and the question remains whether the apparent latest disagreement between The Hague and Philipsburg would even fall under its scope.
